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.

 

Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

page: 14
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


stop making things up. There is plenty/irrefutable of evidence for thermite, What are you talking about, why are you making things up.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   


If you have eyes, you will see I have been insulted WAY more than I have insulted anybody else (if I even have for that matter) so you're biased point is void.

Chill out; nobody is really interested in wasting their time insulting someone like you. I, for one, just want to reward you for being the quintessential ATS sponsored lapdog that you are. Even though you are following in the footsteps of many other ATS sponsored lapdogs, I think you're an extremely special one and deserve to be recognized as such. A prize pedigree, so to speak.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





A building collapsing in its footprint, evidenced by the outer walls being on top of the collapsed building, can only happen from a controlled implosion demolition.


Wrong...

The World Trade Centers towers walls were the structural strength in th building. If you would take the time to look this up you would know this and not keep typing false information.



The buildings used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure. There were 59 perimeter columns, narrowly spaced, on each side of the buildings. In all, the perimeter walls of the towers were 210 feet (64 m) on each side, and the corners were beveled. The perimeter columns were designed to provide support for virtually all lateral loads (such as wind loads) and to share the gravity loads with the core columns.[46] Structural analysis of major portions of the World Trade Center were computed on an IBM 1620.[47]


Typical WTC architectural floor planThe perimeter structure was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces, which consisted of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates. The perimeter columns had a square cross section, 14 inches (36 cm) on a side, and were constructed of welded steel plate.[48] The thickness of the plates and grade of structural steel varied over the height of the tower, ranging from 36,000 to 100,000 pounds per square inch[49] (260 to 670 MPa). The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors.[48] The tube-frame design required 40 percent less structural steel than conventional building designs.[50] From the 7th floor to the ground level, and down to the foundation, the columns were spaced 10 feet (3 m) apart.[51] All columns were placed on bedrock, which, unlike that in Midtown Manhattan, where the bedrock is shallow, is at 65–85 feet (20–26 m) below the surface.[52]

The spandrel plates were welded to the columns to create the modular pieces off-site at the fabrication shop.[53] The modular pieces were typically 52 inches (1.3 m) deep, and extended for two full floors and half of two more floors.[48] Adjacent modules were bolted together, with the splices occurring at mid-span of the columns and spandrels. The spandrel plates were located at each floor, transmitting shear stress between columns, allowing them to work together in resisting lateral loads. The joints between modules were staggered vertically, so the column splices between adjacent modules were not at the same floor.[48

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center


Here is the floor truss design.



The floor trusses connect to the outer truss design. The skin if you will, takes the brunt of the load.

Again if you would take the time to look at the engineering facts and the true design of the buildings you would hopefully understand how they came down...Quit getting your "facts" from the uninformed. It makes you look less credible....You need to focus on another topic because this one is a done deal.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Let me show you how we do things here man. THIS is an article validating earlier claims that Tower 7 had collapsed around an hour earlier than it had. I am still looking for the coverage of the cnn anchor whom stated 7 had collapsed when in reality, she was overlooking the view and in the background tower 7 is still up. This is supposed to be live coverage. Around 5-7 minutes before it does, the anchor suddenly loses signal or something like that. 7 was the eyesore of the mess of a cover up 9/11 turned out to be, that and maybe the pentagon hit....where those RR engine casings go eh??

Tower 7 prematurely reported down

The google vid-the embed didnt work

I do believe this is the correct reporter. I have read on the comments that the fire department knew hours in advance...hours? I simply felt compelled to ask, HOW?
edit on 18-6-2011 by Averysmallfoxx because: Tried embed and didn't work so I just linked it.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimnuggits
Anybody here ever worked with steel?

It's an impossible medium, because you have to keep it incredibly hot to work with it, ie bend, manipulate.

Jet fuel and office furniture would not create enough heat, with any kind of flame that would last long enough to completely melt the steel supports.

It may have reached melting temperature, but not nearly long enough to cause a molten puddle that lasted for literally months.

Next...?



Although steel doesn't melt until it reaches 2750 degrees F, it loses 50% of it's strength at 1100 degrees F. The worste of the WTC fires were burning at around 1800 degrees F making them only logical to collapse.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Let me show you how we do things here man. THIS is an article validating earlier claims that Tower 7 had collapsed around an hour earlier than it had. I am still looking for the coverage of the cnn anchor whom stated 7 had collapsed when in reality, she was overlooking the view and in the background tower 7 is still up. This is supposed to be live coverage. Around 5-7 minutes before it does, the anchor suddenly loses signal or something like that. 7 was the eyesore of the mess of a cover up 9/11 turned out to be, that and maybe the pentagon hit....where those RR engine casings go eh??

Tower 7 prematurely reported down

[gvid]



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


The NIST report was only up to the collapse initiation. You know this you have been around a long time.

The missing truss seats are an obvious sign of progressive collapse.

Explain the missing truss seats in detail Truther.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad
SkepticBeliever. Give up alright, this is a forum for intelligent people. Stop talking about gravity. What removed the mass to cause near free fall, free fall acceleration? Im guessing your fantasy




You are talkng of intelligence and you do not undersatnd structural design.

Dude you need to quit. You are the one looking silly.

Do your homework on the designs....Structural designs of the buildings.
edit on 18-6-2011 by liejunkie01 because: spelling



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


oh you piece of /.... that is pure fantasy and a insult to common sense. 50% is/might be possible, however only if the heat source is centered at one point. Office fires wont do that, they never did and they never will. Stop spreading myths.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by ANOK
 





A building collapsing in its footprint, evidenced by the outer walls being on top of the collapsed building, can only happen from a controlled implosion demolition.


Wrong...

The World Trade Centers towers walls were the structural strength in th building. If you would take the time to look this up you would know this and not keep typing false information.



The buildings used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure. There were 59 perimeter columns, narrowly spaced, on each side of the buildings. In all, the perimeter walls of the towers were 210 feet (64 m) on each side, and the corners were beveled. The perimeter columns were designed to provide support for virtually all lateral loads (such as wind loads) and to share the gravity loads with the core columns.[46] Structural analysis of major portions of the World Trade Center were computed on an IBM 1620.[47]


Typical WTC architectural floor planThe perimeter structure was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces, which consisted of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates. The perimeter columns had a square cross section, 14 inches (36 cm) on a side, and were constructed of welded steel plate.[48] The thickness of the plates and grade of structural steel varied over the height of the tower, ranging from 36,000 to 100,000 pounds per square inch[49] (260 to 670 MPa). The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors.[48] The tube-frame design required 40 percent less structural steel than conventional building designs.[50] From the 7th floor to the ground level, and down to the foundation, the columns were spaced 10 feet (3 m) apart.[51] All columns were placed on bedrock, which, unlike that in Midtown Manhattan, where the bedrock is shallow, is at 65–85 feet (20–26 m) below the surface.[52]

The spandrel plates were welded to the columns to create the modular pieces off-site at the fabrication shop.[53] The modular pieces were typically 52 inches (1.3 m) deep, and extended for two full floors and half of two more floors.[48] Adjacent modules were bolted together, with the splices occurring at mid-span of the columns and spandrels. The spandrel plates were located at each floor, transmitting shear stress between columns, allowing them to work together in resisting lateral loads. The joints between modules were staggered vertically, so the column splices between adjacent modules were not at the same floor.[48

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center


Here is the floor truss design.



The floor trusses connect to the outer truss design. The skin if you will, takes the brunt of the load.

Again if you would take the time to look at the engineering facts and the true design of the buildings you would hopefully understand how they came down...Quit getting your "facts" from the uninformed. It makes you look less credible....You need to focus on another topic because this one is a done deal.



All that information and you just so happened to forget the center support column? The center support column is actually the anchor strength in the design of the towers...how can you overlook that and yet be so dismissive? Don't start your post with stuff like "WRONG" when you are not thorough with your own research...It makes you look pompous.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
"Tiiime . . . is like a river . . . flowing to the seaaaa . . . "

Fist I'd like to welcome the OP to ATS. He just registered a couple of days ago, but his arguments are those of a well practiced debunker. These situations make me wonder under what name he was originally banned.

This sounds like an off topic start to the post, but it is actually germane to the discussion. Extraordinary claims like the one asserting that a controlled demolition was not necessary to bring down the towers, require extraordinary evidence and also, at least reassuring credentials.

The OP has no cred. He/she is a newbie. This is Sparta!

Even at 14 seconds for the collapse, the towers collapsed at 1/20th of a second per floor slower than free fall. Only a controlled demolition could achieve that speed of collapse. When you add in the symmetry of the collapse and other factors, such as evidence of thermite/ate, building 7's collapse being announced by the BBC in London,thousands of miles away, twenty minutes before it happened, Silverstein's "pull it" comment, witnesses being told to get back from building 7 because it was going to be brought down, witnesses reporting bombs in the building and on and on, the obvious thing is that controlled demolitions brought these buildings down.

Real newbies on ATS should check the date when a person making an extraordinary claim, collapse by "damage and fire related structual weakness", registered as a member. It is often, as I believe it is in this case, a very telling statistic.
edit on 18-6-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


And Building 7?

And 'Pull it?'

And Secret Service's lack of action?

And The Air Force couldn't rally planes for over an hour?

And Bush's reaction?

And the molten puddles of steel, bubbling for two months after?

I could go on, but why?

More questions than answers equals actual conspiracy.

Say what you want...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


oh you piece of /.... that is pure fantasy and a insult to common sense. 50% is/might be possible, however only if the heat source is centered at one point. Office fires wont do that, they never did and they never will. Stop spreading myths.



Nobody said it was JUST the office fires that did it ,use some common sense will you? Unlike most office fires, the crashes piled debris against the furthest walls and corners, providing fuel for the persistent fires right at the most vunerable points of the building. And like someone already mentioned if you know anything about the structural design of the building it becomes musch easier to understand.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Averysmallfoxx
 


I really don't see your point here?

The core held the majority of the weight, the outer walls provided stability and allowed it to sway. That link you provided from wiki is incorrect.

But regardless there is no evidence of pancaking, are you still insisting that happened when NIST themselves rejected that hypothesis? A lot of people fell for that at first, but most realised years ago, including NIST, that pancake collapse was not the answer.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by notsoperfect
reply to post by dadgad
 


There are three shills on top of the OP on this disinfo campaign. You know who they are..

They have prepared even the drawings ready to display...


Wow no wonder you won't let go of conspiracy theories with such paranoid logic lol Maybe I just want to help people be awakened from the conspiracy spell like I was awakened years ago because it didn't stand up to science and was debunked plenty of times years ago. I'm no agent this isn't The Matrix, I'm the real truther.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Reading your posts on this thread makes me question 1. Your age and 2. Your maturity, watching you fire back at others for their beliefs is comical. You come to a conspiracy website, decide to post in one of the most controversial topics, and expect to just fight off all those who think 9/11 was an inside job? I appreciated you original post, believing that you added good insight to your side of the argument, however after reading your immature attacks and posts that was all brought down.
You do not know if you are correct. I do not know if i am correct. All that is left to do is remain open to both sides. They say ignorance is bliss, in my opinion, ignorance is immaturity.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


I understand that your username suits your character. Please be so kind to join skepticbeliever on a first class flight to lala land, where you are invited to spread more myths amongst the teletubbies. I heard they are lonely and in desperate need of company.
edit on 18-6-2011 by dadgad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Averysmallfoxx
 




The building's core housed the elevator and utility shafts, restrooms, three stairwells, and other support spaces. The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m), and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower.[48] The columns tapered after the 66th floor, and consisted of welded box-sections at lower floors and rolled wide-flange sections at upper floors. The structural core in 1 WTC was oriented with the long axis east to west, while that of 2 WTC was oriented north to south. All elevators were located in the core. Each building had three stairwells, also in the core, except on the mechanical floors where they were located outside the core.

The large, column-free space between the perimeter and core was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses. The floors supported their own weight, as well as live loads, provided lateral stability to the exterior walls, and distributed wind loads among the exterior walls. The floors consisted of 4-inch (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck with shear connections for composite action.[4

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center



This is the answer you are looking for.

The floors supported their own weight, as well as live loads, provided lateral stability to the exterior walls, and distributed wind loads among the exterior walls.


The outer skin was the main support.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Wikipedia. Who wrote that. You?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join