It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I think it should be fairly apparent that the tilt start after the top had dropped some distance, but feel free to add lines or squiggles if it makes you happy.
Soory gen...your statment is only partly true....they do that with the...listen...the assumption that the building could.....listen really carefully....shhhh....it might be hard to digest....IN CASE THE BUILDING.........listen now.....TOPPLES,tilts,leans,sways,rotates......all the things one might expect to occur in a method of unknown collapse....now go read up on perimeter clearence of areas when a CD is under taken......precautions are still there but the perimeter clearence is way less.
not one of you have explained what happened to the core...yet in the sauret video that was posted shows the antena....listen...THE ANTENA was the first section falling before the block even moved.....yet nope.....lets just ignore that shall we....not one of you can say why the core compressed down with this mysterious pancake that you like to parade...yet the very NIST report says the floors did not pancake.....now lets not get confused here shall we......
The Bazant Zhou reports use a made up progressive collapse theory...NOT PANCAKING......hmmm confused here...which one do you support....come on....make it good.....you keep going on about how the floors failed....so you must subscribe to the pancaking theory....
so come on ......stop with the CR"* and show what you think...then i am sure it could be ripped apart quite well....be brave and show your OWN work....you just shot your own foot with such a ridiculous statement.....this was a straight down collapse for the most part....and yes debris would be expelled over good distances...no matter how the structure collapsed.....
did the twin towers rotate and topple like one might expect in a UNEVEN collapse.....no they didn't even though both towers showed signs of tilting yet rotation in both cases arrested...WHY?
there is only one plausible reason why.....support from the lower section of the buildings was removed....but not one little bit of this explains building 7's collapse....and i know you will go on about fires as you have at length in the past....cry me a river.....it the fires burned so hot and sooooo evenly and they cause simultaneous failure then hey we have hit a jackpot....now come put it on the line here...without a bunch of litter in between.
post by plube
i will put another test to you....please explain also why,,,,,the Madrid building stayed standing...and you can spew more rubbish about the thermals of the jet fuel...but you and i know it would take more than just the jet fuel it would require longer burning combustibles as the jet fuel would expel most of its thermal energy very quickly.
On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.
Plube, you really, REALLY don't get it. The thing that is relevant is not antenna movement, but it is tilt before full floor failure. You can see on Darkwings video that tilt of the full top section very likely did not happen before full floor failure. You can not see this on your video. After concluding this, tilt is no longer an issue of debate.
Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by GenRadek
Wow, did you even read the link? www.irishconcrete.ie...
Who wrote that? Here's a hint: The Irish Concrete Federation. What a surprise that they don't think spalling is a big problem.
In other news it appears that margarine is better than butter, need proof? www.choosemargarine.com...
See? Proof positive!
Also, smoking is really good for you apparently.
It may well be the case that concrete is better and that spalling is not such a big issue, but all the articles I could find in a quick trawl seem to refer to NIST's conclusions to support the notion that this is in fact the case.
As such none of these articles constitute evidence for the particular question we are asking, because we are asking if NIST's conclusion were correct. You cannot use NIST's conclusions to support NIST's conclusions.
Find better sources and then maybe we can have a discussion about steel vs concrete vis-à-vis fire resistance. Until then it remains an open question as to whether a large heat sink or spalling is the salient feature to consider in this case.edit on 3-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
The core failed before the floor assemblies did. That is basically what NIST is saying. All supporting columns failed, making the complete upper part fall down. It fell on lower floors, and from that moment the floors started failing.