It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

page: 40
34
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:40 PM
If you want the most accurate determination of mass in the towers, Gregory Urich's analysis is still the most accurate as far as I know:

www.journalof911studies.com...

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:01 PM

Originally posted by exponent
If you want the most accurate determination of mass in the towers, Gregory Urich's analysis is still the most accurate as far as I know:

www.journalof911studies.com...

There is an article about the exterior wall panels of the WTC which extended from the 9th floor to the top of the building. It is from 1970 when the buildings were being constructed and long before 9/11. It says the heaviest panel was 22 tons. Urich admits that he did a linear interpolation on the basis of the total weight of the panels. He used 19 tons for the heaviest panels at the bottom.

The largest contract for fabrication of structural steel is held by Pacific Car and Foundry Co., of Seattle. It is \$21.79 million for 55,000 tons of steel for the towers' bearing wall panels from the ninth floor up.

In all there are 5,828 of these panels, each about 10 ft wide, 36 ft high, with the heaviest individual panel weighing about 22 tons. Each panel consists of three box columns, 14 in. square, made up of plate up to 3 in. thick and, connected by 54-in, deep spandrels.

guardian.150m.com...

You can't do a linear interpolation with 22 tons at the bottom because that results in negative numbers at the top.

If you look at the shape of the CN Tower you will see that it is not linear. Urich's interpolation puts too much weight toward the top. The distribution would not have been linear.

Why can't the NIST tell us the number of different weights of wall panels and the weight and quantity of each type?

That is the ridiculous thing about this entire situation. Why should we get data from Urich? Why haven't structural engineers in the US been demanding this data from government sources? Urich is a computer programmer in Sweden. If his data is in fact the best doesn't that demonstrate unforgivable incompetence in the United States?

psik

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:27 AM

Originally posted by ANOK
Wrong. WTC was not the first, or last, tube designed building. The first one was built in 1963, and that design is still used today for the world tallest buildings.

en.wikipedia.org...

It wasn't a typical tube design. It was a tube in tube design, with no supports in the working area of the floors, with lightweight metal trusses that span between the inner and outer columns.

We've gone over this before.

Originally posted by ANOK

The building was designed to hold that weight more than once. How many more times does this have to be explained before one of you get it? Go learn what factor of safety is.

How many times does it have to be explained to you that the safety factor is not for a dynamic load, but for a static load.

Now, do you know the difference? Do you understand that the differences between the two are huge?

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:55 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
There is an article about the exterior wall panels of the WTC which extended from the 9th floor to the top of the building. It is from 1970 when the buildings were being constructed and long before 9/11. It says the heaviest panel was 22 tons. Urich admits that he did a linear interpolation on the basis of the total weight of the panels. He used 19 tons for the heaviest panels at the bottom.

You can't do a linear interpolation with 22 tons at the bottom because that results in negative numbers at the top.

No it doesn't, but if that is indeed wrong he'll be out by only a small amount.

If you look at the shape of the CN Tower you will see that it is not linear. Urich's interpolation puts too much weight toward the top. The distribution would not have been linear.

The distribution would almost certainly have been linear, as weight carried increases linearly. Do you have any evidence that is better than what he has compiled?

Why can't the NIST tell us the number of different weights of wall panels and the weight and quantity of each type?

They can, have you submitted a FOIA request to them over this?

If his data is in fact the best doesn't that demonstrate unforgivable incompetence in the United States?
psik

I know that no matter what I say you will believe it does, so I won't even bother arguing.

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 05:00 PM

What weight? Are you mentally challenged? How about the fact that suddenly 60000 tons of floors above the point of collapse could not support the floors?

Insult noted. How do you know that suddenly they could not support the floors? That is nonsense, there is no reason the undamaged structure could not continue to do what it had always done.

that is based a 3000 tons per floor...what needs to be explained with physics? I love this argument you guys always throw up like that will scare people away. If there is nothing to hold it up, there is only one way to go....

Again that is weight the building was designed to hold MANY times over, factor of safety. Your failure to understand building construction is the problem. The weight is irrelevant as it was way bellow what the building was designed to hold, there was no extra weight.

Please, explain to me how you can use Newton to explain how 60000 tons of concrete, steel and office were to be suspended when it collapsed and float. Gonna call Criss Angel?

What? Suspended? You seem to think the top was suddenly detached from the bottom lifted up to create a gap and then dropped? Is that what you're saying?

You seem to have this cartoon view of what happened that is not based on any reality at all. NIST already dismissed the pancake progressive collapse hypothesis.

So what IF the whole top section dropped on the bottom? This when the laws of motion come into play. This is when you need to understand equal opposite reactions, and the momentum conservation principle.

Also, watch the video and dont think like a truther or be offended....you might learn something. It shows exactly how it happened. No explosives. No conspiracy. Just the US caught with its pants down.

Don't tell me to watch a video, where is your explanation? I don't want to debate a video by proxy.

Tell me how those towers defied the laws of motion esdad?

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

wtc.nist.gov...

Your argument isn't even supported by NIST.

edit on 4/14/2011 by ANOK because: 911insidejob

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 06:54 PM

ANOK, do you ever fully comprehend what you read?

Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse

NIST is saying that the floors pancaking was not the INITIATOR of the collapse, but rather, the exterior columns being pulled in was the INITIATOR of collapse. You do know what "initiate" means? It means, to begin, the event that sets everything in motion. After that, the floors proceeded to pancake down. Where else were they going to go, up?

I mean SHEESH!
ANOK, I thought you were better than this. The floors pancking first was not an initiator. The initiator was the sagging trusses pulling in the exterior column, causing THEM to fail, and THEN the floors began to collapse down AFTER initiation!

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:40 PM
Dear ANOK,

Then please explain it? All you do is attempt to discredit anything anyone says but do not back up any of your arguments and/or suggestions. How do I know that the floors could not support the weight? First, Watch the video and it plainly explains it. I was not insulting you as I was asking a question and not making a statement about your mentality. Are you also trying to say that the building was undamaged? Are you serious? BIG PLANES HIT BUILDINGS....lots of damage....

You bought up Newton, so take the time to explain it. The rest of us do. Also, you denial of wanting to watch the video shows that you are not here to learn anything, or find the truth, but simply tell people they are wrong. So, please explain how it was 'designed' to support the added weight that occurred. I have never seen a building that can lose most of its fundamental support and 'float' in midair. Not even Newton can help you with that one....I mean, you are contradicting yourself ANOK..big time.

There is no need for a physics lesson or to tell me I do not understand to dynamics of the design of the WTC. This is actually very very simple. ANY building, if it loses the ability to support the upper floors, as occurred when the trusses failed with the outer columns, will collapse. That is the extra weight. If it is designed to distribute, and it cannot, what happens? The fact that the towers stood as long as they did are a testament to the design and that we did not have 20,000 dead instead of 3000.

Also, there is no pancake theory here in what I am saying. There was no progressive collapse.. As NIST states

Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

This is what we are saying. The link you provided was not to the actual findings but responses to questions such as yours. Did you read the real report or the cliff notes as you linked?

edit on 14-4-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 01:40 PM

This thread is to show the obvious

how silly it is to believe a plane impact would have the same result TWICE
between the time of the hit and the fall .. TWICE the same to
and TWICE the exact kind of collapse

coincidences ?? none-truther will say .. LOL
bite me

there is some disinfo agents here trying to make us swallow the cover up story "official version" PFFFTT
some still have the brain to fully descredit the lying version
edit on 4/15/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 03:04 PM
Moot Comparison!!! First of all, is New York prone to earthquakes? No! Is foundational swaying the same as structural failure of support girders as a result of heat? No! From a mechanical engineer's perspective, completely useless comment/claim!

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 03:11 PM

Until you take any Heat/Mass Transfer or Thermal Design engineering classes, shut your mouth. You, nor any other 911 conspiracy theorists are qualified to make such outrageous claims. Were you there? Did you have your hand on the support girders, feeling the temperature? Are you even aware that steel is one of the most thermally conductive materials, and that i it is highly susceptible to torsion under extreme temperatures. Do you know how hot JP-8 grade fuel burns? I assume you answered No to most or all of those preliminary questions. Once you understand these concepts, maybe we can hold an educated debate about what happened...

Deny Ignorance people!

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 04:09 PM
So, Ben81

If you research the 93 bombing, they were attempting to push one tower into the other. With the WTC, you have two chances instead of one and I personally think they chose the WTC because of the design and the thought that a plane at 500 mph could cut through it. I think we were lucky on 9/11/

Now, did you ever go to the WTC? I ask this of people because they speak of them as if they were 4 story buildings. I remember the first time, in 1976, and visiting numerous times after that. The Top of the World deck was amazing. They are huge.

Honestly, all arguing aside, the WTC did it's job. It stood and everyone should have been evacuated but some did not and some were stuck. It could have been so much worse. This is no coincidence, it was brillant. Using a plane as a missile to attempt to either cut them in half or push on into the other. If you can't go under, you go higher, right?

And to answer the question of the OP, yes, I still believe that 2 planes hit the WTC. They were on fire and collapsed. Instead of watching condensed versions on you tube, take a few hours and watch the people jumping..falling...scared. And the men and women who ran in to save them and gave their lives.

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 04:25 PM

So, Ben81
And to answer the question of the OP, yes, I still believe that 2 planes hit the WTC. They were on fire and collapsed. Instead of watching condensed versions on you tube, take a few hours and watch the people jumping..falling...scared. And the men and women who ran in to save them and gave their lives.

having a plane hitting the building where i work at the 15th floors .. i would be scared to and probably be falling to my death because i would be cornered by fires with no solution to run aways from the heat

that doesnt explain the collapse
THE WTC WERE BUILD TO WITHSTAND ANY IMPACT OR FIRE

again why does people underestimate the WTC .. no respect for the victims ... who died on that day because of a cover up false flag operation to make wars in the ME

INNACEPTABLE

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 04:34 PM

Originally posted by FDNY343
How many times does it have to be explained to you that the safety factor is not for a dynamic load, but for a static load.

Now, do you know the difference? Do you understand that the differences between the two are huge?

The word HUGE is so specific.

That explains nothing.

I built a minimum strength model to support a STATIC LOAD and then dropped its top 13% for a DYNAMIC LOAD.

The collapse ARRESTED. So why doesn't EVERYONE want to know the distributions of steel and the amount of energy required to collapse each level of the core?

It takes 0.118 Joules to crush a single loop in my model. The damage done by the drop corresponded quite well with the potential energy of the fall.

People just throw words around like HUGE and INTENSE and act like people are supposed to believe what they say because they used that word. There were 90 intact levels below the impact point of the north tower. Each level would absorb energy thereby slowing the falling top portion of the tower. But we are supposed to BELIEVE that 16 stories that got lighter and weaker going up could TOTALLY DESTROY 90 stories that got stronger and heavier going down because you use the word HUGE?

psik

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 04:45 PM

I built a minimum strength model to support a STATIC LOAD and then dropped its top 13% for a DYNAMIC LOAD.

The collapse ARRESTED. So why doesn't EVERYONE want to know the distributions of steel and the amount of energy required to collapse each level of the core?

It takes 0.118 Joules to crush a single loop in my model. The damage done by the drop corresponded quite well with the potential energy of the fall.

Wow, thats amazing. Just for the record, how thick was the broomhandle that ran inside the world trade center towers?

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 05:30 PM
post removed because of personal attacks

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 06:04 PM

,Then please explain it? All you do is attempt to discredit anything anyone says but do not back up any of your arguments and/or suggestions.

Nonsense I have explained this many times to you and others, you have a short memory it seems.

How do I know that the floors could not support the weight? First, Watch the video and it plainly explains it. I was not insulting you as I was asking a question and not making a statement about your mentality. Are you also trying to say that the building was undamaged? Are you serious? BIG PLANES HIT BUILDINGS....lots of damage....

Why should I watch your video? I am here to debate you, not a critique a video. If you want to debate the points in the video then YOU explain them, don't tell me to watch a video. I will respond to you when you put in the work to explain your point.

You bought up Newton, so take the time to explain it.

OK one more time, equal opposite reactions and conservation of momentum. When two objects collide the forces on each object is equal...

Sir Isaac Newton first presented his three laws of motion in the "Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis" in 1686. His third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, if object A exerts a force on object B, then object B also exerts an equal and opposite force on object A. Notice that the forces are exerted on different objects.

Conservation of momentum, when two objects collide they both want to continue their momentum, equal opposite reactions, if one object is moving it will want to continue moving, if the other object is stationary, as in WTC impacted floors, it will want to remain stationary, equally.

For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

The top floors of the towers could not have collided with the bottom floors and continued without being damaged themselves. The top would have been destroyed before it could have destroyed the bottom. The top had less mass then the bottom if you want to look at it as blocks of floors falling on blocks of floors. If you take it as a floor impacting a floor you have more or less equal mass, both floors would either destroy each other or they wouldn't, the later would reacquire floors to still be in the footprint, the former would run out of floors before the bottom floors are all gone. Both scenarios require more mass in the footprint than was observed post collapse.

I hope you realise that the sagging trusses hypothesis only tries to explain the collapse initiation, not the collapse itself? You need another mechanism for the actual collapse. You admit it wasn't a pancake/progressive collapse, so what do you think cause it then? And please don't say it was inevitable as that is nonsense. A cop out, a failure to understand physics.

Also, you denial of wanting to watch the video shows that you are not here to learn anything, or find the truth, but simply tell people they are wrong.

No I want to debate you not critique a video. Don't be lazy, do your own work.

So, please explain how it was 'designed' to support the added weight that occurred. I have never seen a building that can lose most of its fundamental support and 'float' in midair. Not even Newton can help you with that one....I mean, you are contradicting yourself ANOK..big time.

What added weight? Most of its fundamental support? That is not true and you know it. How am I contradicting myself? What floating?

First off prove that the building lost most of its support. How is that possible when most of the building was not effected by the fires? There is no evidence the buildings lost any support. The support starts with the foundations not the top of the building.

There is no need for a physics lesson or to tell me I do not understand to dynamics of the design of the WTC. This is actually very very simple. ANY building, if it loses the ability to support the upper floors, as occurred when the trusses failed with the outer columns, will collapse. That is the extra weight. If it is designed to distribute, and it cannot, what happens? The fact that the towers stood as long as they did are a testament to the design and that we did not have 20,000 dead instead of 3000.

We know what NIST claimed, repeating it to me doesn't suddenly make me believe it. Again there is no proof of this, and no proof it if did happen it would cause failure of the core, and complete failure of the building. Why didn't the trusses fail in the 1975 fire and cause global collapse? That fire was lower down, covered 10 floors, and had many more floors above it.

"It was like fighting a blow torch" according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6. Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building.

whatreallyhappened.com...

Also, there is no pancake theory here in what I am saying. There was no progressive collapse.. As NIST states

So why do you all still argue for pancake/progressive collapse then?

Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Sagging trusses can not exert a force on the much more massive columns they were attached to. The trusses sag because they expand from heat, and have nowhere to go because they can not push the columns outwards, so they sag down. If they sag because there is no room for their expansion, and they can not force the columns to push out, then how the hell do they pull the columns in?

Can you explain that without referring to NIST?

This is what we are saying. The link you provided was not to the actual findings but responses to questions such as yours. Did you read the real report or the cliff notes as you linked?

Huh? Want to look at that link again mate...

wtc.nist.gov...

That is the NIST fact sheet. As someone who thinks they're an expert on the OS you fail to even recognize an official NIST site. Hilarious. Do you actually pay any attention to what you're reading?

edit on 4/15/2011 by ANOK because: 911insidejob

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 06:46 PM

Notice that the dowel did not provide vertical support or participate in the collapse.

Then tell you what, take the dowel out and do your little experiment and see if your rings stay all neatly stacked on top of one another or if they all fall apart like the towers structure did on 9/11. You keep obsessing about this "crushing" and that's not what happened on 9/11. Once all those millions of connections that kept the towers together were stressed beyond anything that they were designed for the building just zipped apart. And that's exactly what we saw on 9/11.

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 11:50 PM

Originally posted by hooper

Notice that the dowel did not provide vertical support or participate in the collapse.

Then tell you what, take the dowel out and do your little experiment and see if your rings stay all neatly stacked on top of one another or if they all fall apart like the towers structure did on 9/11. You keep obsessing about this "crushing" and that's not what happened on 9/11. Once all those millions of connections that kept the towers together were stressed beyond anything that they were designed for the building just zipped apart. And that's exactly what we saw on 9/11.

I have already admitted that without the dowel the stack falls over. I said the dowel did not provide VERTICAL support. The paper loops are so weak that tilting puts more weight on one side of the loops at the bottom. That side crumples and the whole thing falls over.

Crushing is NOT what happened on 9/11. If it had the collapse would have arrested. That is the point of my model. The only way for what we saw on 9/11 to happen is for the supports to be blown out from below. The towers could not be crushed down from the top and be completely destroyed that fast.

A computerized "magical" collapse without supports based on the conservation of momentum takes 12 seconds. Destroying supports would have to take longer. So all of the people claiming the north tower was destroyed due to the portion above the impact zone coming straight down and destroying the rest are talking nonsense because the strength of the building necessary for it to hold itself up would make it impossible.

Where has any engineering school tried to make a physical model of the collapse in the last NINE YEARS?

Wonder why?

psik

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 08:07 AM
Do you still not understand the problem with modeling?

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 10:51 AM
Ok there is so many comments and opinions.. some are pretty hard to follow
lets vote on that mather for once and for all

The people who believe the 9/11 official version do a thumb up

The people who do NOT believe the 9/11 official version do a thumb down

new topics

top topics

34