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 Logical one
If you did then I'll admit you may not be as dumb as sound!
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by FDNY343
Secondly, are you referencing recent codes, or are you referencing the codes from the 1960's.
Also, remember that some of the codes were "circumvented" so to speak. Not ignored, but the design was considered acceptable.
I posted my thoughts on the "circumvention" of codes in some other thread, but I do believe that could be a significant factor. It is probably too late to prove that now, but on a project the size of the WTC, imagine a dozen or more levels of "shortcut taking." Maybe they found a material that was just a little bit cheaper. Maybe they found a a dozen subs that did the job just a little bit cheaper. Maybe each guy from each sub took just a couple of shortcuts. One less rivet, one less bolt. Maybe the fire retardant just wasn't quite as thick as it should have been. Maybe the code enforcers and building inspectors were overworked and just initialed off on some things without looking closely.
Imagine just a little bit of shortcutting, over and over and over through dozens of layers of contractors from the General Contractor through the subs, the supers, and down to the poor smuck walking on the iron.
I believe that is an excellent argument that could be made in favor of the official story. But I am still on the other side of the fence, LOL!
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Logical one
I beg to differ with that. Maybe our ATS fireman can attest to it better than me, but airplanes hitting high-rises is part of contingency planning, and fires that use petrochemical accelerants are common place, and they are familiar, or quickly become familiar with every type of construction technique in their precincts.
It may not be common, but within minutes of the first strike, they had plans for the building, and they knew what type of fire they were dealing with, and they were addressing the safety factors of battling the blaze.
Originally posted by Yankee451
I appreciate what you guys are trying to say. I try to write with the layman in mind, so let’s try to keep it simple so readers don’t get confused and discouraged with the thread. In my short time here I’ve run into FDNY343 on other threads. On one he argued the viability of Aluminum Bullets and Aluminum Sledge Hammers, exposing his ignorance about material densities but when confronted he just disappears and goes to another thread.
Originally posted by Yankee451
This is important information. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead now, and more are joining that grim roster by the hour. To defend the OS means defending their wars. With that in mind, accurate information is essential, and you guys are being disingenuous to say the least.
Originally posted by Yankee451
You are saying that regardless of mass and density of material, if you apply enough Kinetic Energy (KE) to an object…IE, make it go fast enough, it will cut through anything. In this example, you are arguing that a wingtip made of a lightweight and relatively soft metal like aluminum, when traveling at a certain velocity, will slice through very dense and massive structural steel, causing the plane-like cutout hole as depicted on TV.
This is only possible in Hollywood, not in the real world.
KDNY343 is looking for investors in a start up company which makes aluminum bullets and sledge hammers. You guys should pool your money.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Logical one
I have to give you that one, because I still don't believe they collapsed the way the supposedly did! I am certain the firemen never dreamed they would collapse that way, and here we are almost 10 years later, and a large swath of us still don't believe they collapsed that way.
I'm not sure if that helps your argument or mine though?
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by Logical one
.remember the Twin Towers were one of the first to employ the tube-frame structural design.
The tube design was not as unique to the twin towers as we are led to believe.
These are all tube design buildings...
DeWitt-Chestnut Apartment Building in Chicago, Illinois, completed in 1963.
John Hancock Center at 875 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, completed in 1968.
Willis Tower (formerly named, and still commonly referred to as Sears Tower) 108-story, Chicago, completed in 1974.
Petronas Towers (also known as the Petronas Twin Towers or KLCC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1998.
Jin Mao Tower, 88-story skyscraper Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Burj Khalifa, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and is currently the tallest man-made structure ever built, at 828 m (2,717 ft).
Tube structures have since been used in many other later skyscrapers, including the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.[5] The strong influence of tube structure design is also evident in the construction of the current tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa.[4]
en.wikipedia.org...
It had NOTHING to do with the collapse of the towers.
edit on 3/10/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob
Originally posted by Yankee451
My steel wood burning stove proves your physics belongs in cartoons.
Originally posted by ANOK
Garbage, all conducting materials will act as a heat sink.
You do realise for fire to cause the collapse then the majority of the steel would have to be heated to failure, otherwise the unheated steel will take up the load?
Originally posted by ANOK
Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C
www.doctorfire.com...
Originally posted by ANOK
Also to add to this, they didn't even find half the bodies, how do you expect any demolition cables etc., to survive?
Do you actually think before you post?
edit on 3/10/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob
Originally posted by ANOK
The tube design was not as unique to the twin towers as we are led to believe.
These are all tube design buildings...
DeWitt-Chestnut Apartment Building in Chicago, Illinois, completed in 1963.
Originally posted by ANOK
John Hancock Center at 875 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, completed in 1968.
Originally posted by ANOK
Willis Tower (formerly named, and still commonly referred to as Sears Tower) 108-story, Chicago, completed in 1974.
Originally posted by ANOK
Petronas Towers (also known as the Petronas Twin Towers or KLCC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1998.
Due to a lack of steel and the huge cost of importing steel, the towers were constructed on a cheaper radical design of super high-strength reinforced concrete.
Originally posted by ANOK
Jin Mao Tower, 88-story skyscraper Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Originally posted by ANOK
Burj Khalifa, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and is currently the tallest man-made structure ever built, at 828 m (2,717 ft).
Originally posted by FDNY343
Originally posted by Yankee451
My steel wood burning stove proves your physics belongs in cartoons.
Um, your steel wood-burning stove is most likely cast iron, and not steel.
Secondly, your stove is designed to withstand those types of temperatures, since it is much thicker than the steel used in the floor trusses.
Lastly, I could get your stove to deform with wood and a little airflow. Easily actually.
Send me your stove, I will send you back a deformed stove.
Absolute bull****, and you know it. I also explained to you why aluminum sledge hammers would not be very smart. You would need to work twice as hard, since the KE of an aluminum sledge being swung is LESS than a steel sledge being swung. HOWEVER, if you make an aluminum alloy strong enough, it most certainly would work. But, it would be pointless.
Originally posted by FDNY343 It could work. I mean, if it wasn't so damn expensive. Aluminum alloys hold up a cars weight, why couldn't they make a sledge hammer out of aluminum alloys?
Yes, you're right, they don't. And do you wonder why that is? I can tell you.
Weight.
The weight of the sledge is what does the most work if you are doing it properly. (Notice I said properly) The KE of a steel sledge being swung is much more than one made of aluminum.
You would need to swing the aluminum one with much more force to do the same work.
And yes, i've used sledge hammers many times.
Assuming the consequence. I do NOT support the war that we are fighing in Iraq. **** Iraq I say. Let them kill each other off. I couldn't give two craps less. Same with Libia, and Afganistan, etc. etc. **** em all. Take care of our own first.
Explain how a 1/2" fence picket can impale itself into a large (Aproximate 18" dia.)
palm tree without any man made mechanical force?
www.usatoday.com... Kinetic energy.
Explain how water can crush a car?
Water cutting steel?
You're arguing from a failed premise.
Liar. I have never said anything of the like. I said it is POSSIBLE, but not practical.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
So explain exactly how fast can heat from a 30ft long truss transfer into the remaining steel through two 5/8" bolts in slotted holes on both ends, into a seat, from the top chord of the truss
Huh how would I know that and why would I care?
Any metal touching metal is going to transfer heat, sorry you don't understand that.
Even if the steel didn't act as a sink one hour is still not enough time to cause complete failure of a building that is designed to hold its own weight many times over. Even if the whole building heated up, ALL the steel, it would still stand. Steel that is heated does not keep its shape until it decides to fail, it deforms, sags etc., before any failure we would see obvious deformation of the steel. The collapse would have been slow, and in stages, as hot steel was resisted by cold steel and weight is transferred etc.
Originally posted by FDNY343
Originally posted by ANOK
Also to add to this, they didn't even find half the bodies, how do you expect any demolition cables etc., to survive?
Do you actually think before you post?
edit on 3/10/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob
They found buttons, wallets, money, keys, etc. etc. etc.....All found at Fresh Kills.
But, of course, that stuff would survive, but your explosive wiring etc. wouldn't.
I love your brand of science. Just make it fit whatever your beliefs are, it's cool. Nobody will notice.....
Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper.
Originally posted by FDNY343
Hey, you know whats cool ANOK, this doesn't help your cause at all. A typical post-flashover fire will be around 1800 deg F.......Guess where steel looses 50% of it's strength? Less than 1800 deg. F!! LOL!!! Fail!!
M.S. as a measure of requirement verification: Many agencies such as NASA[9] and AIAA[10] define the margin of safety including the design factor, in other words, the margin of safety is calculated after applying the design factor. In the case of a margin of 0, the part is at exactly the required strength (the safety factor would equal the design factor). If there is a part with a required design factor of 3 and a margin of 1, the part would have a safety factor of 6 (capable of supporting two loads equal to its design factor of 3, supporting six times the design load before failure). A margin of 0 would mean the part would pass with a safety factor of 3. If the margin is less than 0 in this definition, although the part will not necessarily fail, the design requirement has not been met. A convenience of this usage is that for all applications, a margin of 0 or higher is passing, one does not need to know application details or compare against requirements, just glancing at the margin calculation tells whether the design passes or not.
Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GenRadek
How many times does this have to be repeated, failing trusses does not equate to complete global collapse of the whole tower including the massive central core.
That is such a ridiculous argument. So what IF the trusses did sag, I highly doubt it from one hour of fire but...
Sagging trusses CAN NOT exert a force on the columns they're attached to, period.
Even if a complete floor did fall all at once it is still not going to cause complete failure of the whole building, the floors were of equal mass, the dropping floor can not crush the static floor and not be crushed itself, Newtons 3rd law of motion, equal and opposite reactions etc.