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.

 

An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

page: 20
13
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


So you will not recognize that no one claims that the steel melted? I asked you to acknowledge that simple idea, but then in this post you say yet again that according to your assertions that the steel could not have "weakened, let alone melted." STOP TALKING ABOUT MELTING STEEL. No one one either side claims that there was any melting. Please admit this and let us move on.




posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Stop talking about weakening the steel, which could have neither melted nor weakened because the fires were burning neither hot enough nor long enough for that to happen. Moreover, suppose that, contrary to the facts, they fires had burned much hotter, the buildings were not enormous heat sinks, and the steel had weakened. Since the fires were asymmetrically distributed, if the steel had weakened--which it did not, but for the sake of argument--then the weakening would have been asymmetrical. There would have been some sagging and tilting, presumably--where steel, as I understand it, melts like ice cream melts--but no collapse of any floor, which of course is completely contrary to the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that ensued. So I think you are barking up the wrong column. There is nothing to support your theory about the steel having weakened. Zilch! Zero! Nada!


Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


So you will not recognize that no one claims that the steel melted? I asked you to acknowledge that simple idea, but then in this post you say yet again that according to your assertions that the steel could not have "weakened, let alone melted." STOP TALKING ABOUT MELTING STEEL. No one one either side claims that there was any melting. Please admit this and let us move on.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Stop talking about weakening the steel, which could have neither melted nor weakened because the fires were burning neither hot enough nor long enough for that to happen. Moreover, suppose that, contrary to the facts, they fires had burned much hotter, the buildings were not enormous heat sinks, and the steel had weakened. Since the fires were asymmetrically distributed, if the steel had weakened--which it did not, but for the sake of argument--then the weakening would have been asymmetrical. There would have been some sagging and tilting, presumably--where steel, as I understand it, melts like ice cream melts--but no collapse of any floor, which of course is completely contrary to the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that ensued. So I think you are barking up the wrong column. There is nothing to support your theory about the steel having weakened. Zilch! Zero! Nada!


Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


So you will not recognize that no one claims that the steel melted? I asked you to acknowledge that simple idea, but then in this post you say yet again that according to your assertions that the steel could not have "weakened, let alone melted." STOP TALKING ABOUT MELTING STEEL. No one one either side claims that there was any melting. Please admit this and let us move on.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Uh, no, steel does not melt like ice cream. It has to become ridiculously heated for prolonged periods at which it will become brightly glowing before it begins to become a liquid. Weakening does not make melting. Weakening makes the metal more flexible and less able to resist a heavy load. Since the towers were damaged, the fire did not have to weaken the steel as much as it normally would have. That's why the previous lower level fire many years before didn't do anything. The structure was entirely intact. It is the plane impact that makes all the difference in whether the towers could remain structurally sound.

Do you understand yet?



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


You "debunk" Loughner threads 7/7 threads and now 9/11 threads .
If you dont believe in conspiracies why are you here ?
Shouldnt you be at the bar/pub/nightclub or watching American Idol ?

Feel free to link me to one of your posts that actually contributes anything worthwhile to this truther movement because right now I see you as a major obstacle/ waste of time in the search for truth .



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Why is it that no one ever mentions the weight of a loaded 767 (minus fuel) resting on the floor(s) of the towers?

The structure was compromised from the impact.

Most of the plane remained inside the building.

Add an hours worth of flames and something is bound to give.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Doomzilla
 


I didn't actually offer anything to the 7/7 discussion as I was unfamiliar with it. I gave my opinion and related stuff because the one thread had connections to 9/11. A guy was saying that the people who died on 9/11 didn't exist.

Also, just because I don't subscribe to the idea that the towers were rigged doesn't mean I don't believe in conspiracies. Also, that is NOT a requirement for posting here.

I often say that I don't think it's too far-fetched to imagine that the US would do something like 9/11, but I just don't think that there was anything more spectacular than planes hitting the buildings. It gets me hated and ridiculed and I'm getting a bad reputation among you people because you are practically indoctrinated to believe there had to have been bombs.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


No noone hates you but when I only see you criticicize what we're saying it makes me wonder if you have an agenda .
I'l take your word for it that you don't .

We may never know the truth about 9 /11 but there is no harm in speculating .


“"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful!
This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence.
It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil.
The one thing every man fears is the unknown.
When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."


Henry Kissinger



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Doomzilla
 


I only criticize what people say because to my knowledge, the things I am criticizing are incorrect or wildly exaggerated or under-exaggerated. I constantly see people using arguments and positions based on information that has either been proven before or debunked without a doubt. I mean, if I hear one more person say that the core disintegrated after WTC 1's collapse, I'm going to lose my mind. The only legitimate disintegration was from the pulverized concrete, because technically the concrete was impacted hard enough to cause the molecules to dis-integrate, or lose their holdings with the other molecules. It created a massive dust cloud that was heavy enough to carry small debris and such.

I just can't see bombs happening since there were so many thousands of people watching in person that day and nobody heard any explosions prior to the collapse. The only "explosions" were heard during the collapse, in which case concrete was exploding from impact, and steel was impacting all sorts of different things.

Then there's the guy who was underground and apparently had an explosion of fire happen a moment before hearing more rumblings from above. Considering he couldn't have seen the plane, it's possible that the jet fuel went down the elevator, blew out at the basement (as well as on other floors, as documented by firefighters), and the rumbling the man heard afterward was not the plane, but simply more floors having waves of flame going through them.

I'm looking for the truth as much as anyone else. It's just really hard when a ton of people can't get basic information straight.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


What's your obsession with that one factor? If it's not there then it's not there. It won't magically appear in the report by traveling back in time. The NIST concluded their report and now other people can deal with things as they wish. If you wish to head an investigation that calculates that specifically, then feel free to!


There is a very strange aspect of skyscrapers. They have to HOLD THEMSELVES UP!

That means the designers of all skyscrapers must figure out how strong every level must be to support all of the weight above it. That means they had to know how much weight could be above every level. And since the buildings must be constructed from the bottom up then all of that must be figured out before construction begins.

That means any supposed analysis of the collapse of a skyscraper that doesn't have that information is IDIOTIC UNSCIENTIFIC DRIVEL. The NCSTAR1 report is a JOKE. As the nation that put men on the Moon the United States should be laughed at for the next 1000 years for not getting 9/11 resolved in SIX MONTHS. All of the people who CLAIM to understand physics should have been demanding distribution of steel and concrete information within weeks of the event.

What is with people too dumb to figure that out?

Where do Steven Jones and Richard Gage bring up the subject? I asked Gage in 2008. He got a surprised look on his face and then said the NIST wasn't releasing accurate blueprints. Check the AE911Truth web site. They don't discuss it. Gravity works the same way all over the planet. There are lots of skyscrapers. Figuring out how to distribute the steel can't be that hard considering the the Empire State Building is 80 years old and designed without electronic computers. The first computer wasn't running until 14 years later.

This NINE YEAR charade is a scientific travesty.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

psik



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Put as simply as possible, a skyscraper is meant to remain standing while undamaged or ONLY damaged. There is compensation in the steel to take a lot more weight than would be necessary just in case anything goes wrong. Unfortunately, fire along with massive damage was and is very hard to take into consideration. If the stairs had not been blocked, the firefighters might have been able to make it in time to save the towers. Unfortunately, there was no way to access the impacted floors.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Put as simply as possible, a skyscraper is meant to remain standing while undamaged or ONLY damaged. There is compensation in the steel to take a lot more weight than would be necessary just in case anything goes wrong. Unfortunately, fire along with massive damage was and is very hard to take into consideration. If the stairs had not been blocked, the firefighters might have been able to make it in time to save the towers. Unfortunately, there was no way to access the impacted floors.


The phrase "MASSIVE DAMAGE" does not really mean anything Scientifically. It is too subjective.

A simple program analyzing 109 FLOATING MASSES that only move when struck demonstrates that a collapse would take about TWELVE SECONDS and that would change somewhat depending on the DISTRIBUTION OF MASS. Therefore a collapse analysis that does not have reasonably accurate distribution of steel and concrete data is UNSCIENTIFIC CRAP.

The WTC was not floating masses. The structure had to be strong enough to support itself all of the way up. So the top 14 stories of the north tower would have to force stationary mass down AND DESTROY THE SUPPORTS that had to be strong enough to support the static load.

Dr. Sunder said the north tower came down in 11 seconds on a PBS podcast. I say it should not have come down at all because it should have arrested. And I built a model to demonstrate the effect.

www.youtube.com...

So you can throw around meaningless phrases like "massive damage" like that explains something all you want. It is just pseudo=intellectual rubbish.

I'm so impressed.

Do the conservation of momentum calculations.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

psik
edit on 3-3-2011 by psikeyhackr because: sp err



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
Why is it that no one ever mentions the weight of a loaded 767 (minus fuel) resting on the floor(s) of the towers?

The structure was compromised from the impact.

Most of the plane remained inside the building.

Add an hours worth of flames and something is bound to give.


The truth of the matter and that this fact alone can destroy all the debunkers efforts and lead 911 truthers down the right path..... The 911 conspiracy happened before the towers were even hit. Focus on that instead of the after events. That is the game they are keeping you all in.
edit on 3-3-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I knew that you would focus on that one word and not care about logic. I actually considered changing it from massive, but since I honestly just don't know any exact numbers and since EVERYONE could see the hole that those planes left, I figured that the inference to the damage would be enough to give you a mental image of the damage the planes inflicted. That is unless of course you are the kind that believes that the planes didn't exist or should have bounced off or scrunchied or something, then leaving you unable to explain the hole aside from claiming that a bomb exploded exactly like a plane going through the building. But I'm losing focus. My point is that in all honesty, you are sounding like a crazy person at the moment.

I mean, this is a public forum, and you are acting as if I need to be a scientific guru on the subject, using perfect wording in order for my point to be heard. Do I really have to be perfect for you to listen?



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

Oh Varemia...
Now, the simple person playing the common man...
What could possibly motivate you?



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Varemia
 

Oh Varemia...
Now, the simple person playing the common man...
What could possibly motivate you?


Stop going off topic and focusing on me. I'm pretty sure that's against the ToS.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

It is.

I like you, so I give you grief. Cut and paste for your scrapbook. (Before it goes by by.)



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


I knew that you would focus on that one word and not care about logic. I actually considered changing it from massive, but since I honestly just don't know any exact numbers and since EVERYONE could see the hole that those planes left, I figured that the inference to the damage would be enough to give you a mental image of the damage the planes inflicted.


I didn't focus on a word I focused on a phrase, "MASSIVE DAMAGE". It is not my fault that you don't understand what LOGIC is.

FEMA said the perimeter columns were operating at 20% load. So even if all of the perimeter columns were taken out on one side of the building the remaining 3 sides would still have more than triple the strength necessary to take the load. So the damage you claim was massive was not nearly so.

You are RATIONALIZING BACKWARDS. You decided to BELIEVE the planes could bring the buildings down so there must have been MASSIVE DAMAGE to accomplish what you believe. You just call you rationalization logical. But how do we actually analyze the event without information as simple as the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level? Why shouldn't we expect to be supplied with that information?

The NIST got $20,000,000 of taxpayers money for 10,000 pages that can't even specify the total for the concrete. They did it for the steel in three places so I suppose we should be grateful.

psik



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

Anyone that knows anything about structural engineering, and how the twin towers were built, and what actual affect even a friggin' missile designed for maximum destruction (let alone a plane with very little "destructive" power) would have had on the towers knows what a damn lie the OS is.
This is all about just how much bull# people will accept. And, they will accept a lot when so many are all to willing to perpetuate ignorance.
I assume for money.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Nice graph! Since NCSTAR 1-3 explained that only three locations out of 170 (involving 236 samples of steel) showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 250*C (about 500*F), the overwhelming majority (subtract 3 from 236 for an approximation of 233) were only exposed to the heat from ordinary office fires.


Do you have a source for that claim? I looked in NCSTAR 1-3, and it said nothing of the sort. What page number is it on?


Originally posted by JimFetzer

Jet fuel is kerosene and does not burn hot enough to weaken or melt steel (unless under controlled conditions, when it is force fed pure oxygen, which was not the case here, as the billowing black smoke revealed).


Two points.

1- It wasn't the jet fuel that caused the steel to fail. Not directly anyway. The jet fuel was a massive match for 5+ floors of fire.

2- Black smoke does NOT under ANY circumstance indicate a oxygen-deprived/limited fire. NEVER.

Black smoke indicates WHAT is burning, and it means hydrocarbons.

If you honestly think that the fires in the WTC towers were oxygen starved, I want you to google "chimney effect" and explain what it means, and why it wouldn't apply in the WTC.



Originally posted by JimFetzer

Kerosene heaters do not melt when they are used. Propane burns hotter and propane camping stoves don't weaken or melt, either.


They are designed that way for a reason.


Originally posted by JimFetzer
Plus the building was an enormous heat sink, which would have dissipated the temperature and prevented it from building up at any specific location.


Again, tell me how much of a heat sink the connections between the trusses and the columns. My calculations say about 1,000 watts per hr.

What are yours?


Originally posted by JimFetzer
UL certified the steel to 2,000*F for three or four hours without any adverse effects. Since the fire in the South Tower only burned about one hour and in the North about an hour and a half, these fires burned neither hot enough nor long enough to cause the steel to weaken, much less melt.


I need you to tell me the UL number for this certification. Also, as I have pointed out before, UL would give the SFRM a rating of an exact measurement or time. 1 hr. 2 hrs. etc.

See here.
www.wilkin-insulation.com...



Originally posted by JimFetzer
In fact, there was a huge fire in the North Tower in 1975 on the 11th floor which burned far hotter (around 2,000*F) and longer (around four hours), where none of the steel had to be replaced.


How did the 11th floor burn hotter? Same materials were present then as in 2001. Also, you seem to be forgetting that it was fought by firefighters the entire time. This helps keep the temperature of the steel down.


Originally posted by JimFetzer
So the UL certification was vindicated.


What UL certification are you talking about? Will you FINALLY reference it?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join