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: 46
23
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrentReznor
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Who in there right mind would design a building as tall as that, that when one beam or floor fails then EVERY floor and all the people in the building will turn to dust in under 10 seconds???????



WHO in their right mind thinks it turns to DUST!!! Think of the materials used in the building that could turn to dust!!




posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Can you show the location of that building relative to the Towers! also any others hit with large pieces of debris, how close was the one shown!



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
This is aimed at ANOK and psikeyhackr lets look at psikeyhackr's model although your model may impress some on here with NO under standing of construction or physics it doesn't impress me.

You cant just take 2 arbitrary materials metal and paper and claim its an accurate model for the WTC towers. So can you tell everyone the following

Does the ratio of the resistance to compression of your paper rings to the mass of the steel washers falling on them MATCH the shear load the 5/8” connector bolts (shown below) could hold to the actual shear load imposed on them during to collapse.



Then we have ANOK with his laws of motion and totally pulverized concrete, now ANOK you seem to be reasonably bright until it comes to these subjects so can you PROVE ALL the dust you saw was concrete and that ALL the concrete was turned to dust? Would you care to provide everyone with a note of how much explosives would be required to turn 110 floors of avg 4-5” thick concrete weighing between 700-800 tons per floor or if neatly laid on top of each other a block of concrete just over 41 feet thick and around one acre in area with a mass of 77,000-88,000 tons, just how much TO TURN IT TO DUST???????

Then of course he like a lot of other conspiracy believers DONT have much idea of how this building was constructed, what happened to all the sheet rock did that withstand the collapse and create no dust? Or how about the badly installed fire protection sprayed on the steel would that have created no dust?

Then we have how he thinks the collapse is a study of the laws of motion and is a simple mass A versus mass B equation well I suppose it is its just that ANOK doesn't deal with the correct mass!!!

In your North tower collapse you claim the 15 floors above could not destroy the mass below because its 95 + times as great and we have all the other people thats say “all the floors below held the floors above before the impact so why would they not after.?”
Well lets list all the problems with that.

1) Impact damage!
2) Fuel explosion!
3) The fires! (NO ONE KNOWS !!! how much damage 1-3 created)
4) The falling load (DYNAMIC)

The floor that was impacted had NONE of theses problems to deal with before the impacts also for those unfamiliar with loading terms the mass of the floors above the impact was a STATIC load before the impact and when the collapse started it became a DYNAMIC load.

To see the difference get a very heavy weight hold it in your arms then get someone to lift it a few inches and drop it into your arms see how it feels then!!!!.

Also YOU claim the mass below resists the mass dropping from above but when the 15 floor mass falls, its ONLY the resistance of the connection bolts on the floor it impacts below that can resist the load!!!

Remember its a tube in a tube the floors can fall internally!!!!

Do you want to show everyone one how the floor connections 2,3,4 –20 floors below help the impacted floor resist the falling load?????

You claim 15 floors was not enough what about the South Tower then?

The WTC open plan design was its ultimate downfall!

The other problem with structural steel is something called the slenderness ratio I suggest you look that up ANOK just to see what problems you get with a very high column of steel when its unsupported say like the spire!!!.

Another person on here with similar beliefs to you (impressme) posted a claim that the WTC steel had been tested to 2500 degrees for several hours to prove it could resist fire he sort of went quiet and changed the subject when I posted a graph showing at that temperature its lost 100% of its strength ie its melted
he never did come back with the proof requested!!!!

I have worked with a Structural Steelwork company when I first left school in the design/drawing office and have been in construction industry for 30+ years and work on projects from a few £1000+ to £100m+.
What do ANOK and psikeyhackr do?


edit on 11-7-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 




You cant just take 2 arbitrary materials metal and paper and claim its an accurate model for the WTC towers. So can you tell everyone the following


Oh come now, surely you must understand that what psikey is trying to do is not to model the building but the process.

Again, this just demonstrates the fundamental ignorance of the OS view, completely ignoring the fact that science is an inductive process. Have you ever even heard of Occam's razor? Go read it again very carefully this time and you will see that your ideas are so very unscientific.

This reminds of the doctors who in the face of numerous studies indicating the blatantly obvious fact that lack of sleep worsens performance will STILL find excuses to say that it does not apply to them or what they do.

Demonstrate that you understand the principle of what psikey is showing, then maybe your comments could be worth discussing.




In your North tower collapse you claim the 15 floors above could not destroy the mass below because its 95 + times as great and we have all the other people thats say “all the floors below held the floors above before the impact so why would they not after.?” Well lets list all the problems with that. 1) Impact damage! 2) Fuel explosion! 3) The fires! (NO ONE KNOWS !!! how much damage 1-3 created) 4) The falling load (DYNAMIC) The floor that was impacted had NONE of theses problems to deal with before the impacts also for those unfamiliar with loading terms the mass of the floors above the impact was a STATIC load before the impact and when the collapse started it became a DYNAMIC load.


EQUAL

AND

OPPOSITE

REACTION

The top floors were damaged, the lower ones were not. The top floors were impacted on the side with trusses, so the structurally more exposed to damage side, while the bottom floors were impacted on the concrete slabs, thus having more capacity to withstand damage.

The whole dynamic load canard is really getting old. Nobody is arguing that there is no difference between static and dynamic loads. Nobody is arguing that a lot of force was not exerted.

But whatever force was exerted was exerted equally.



edit on 11-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: 2



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
I take it you have never heard of live loads.

Woe betide he who keep a filing cabinet in his office, or, heaven forbid, jump for joy.

In any event it is fairly irrelevant since both the floors and the columns were destroyed, so both must have been giving resistance.


It is not irrelevant. The columns did not need to be destroyed. They could simply broke off at the place they are bolted together (and many did).


The floors, and much of the core and perimeter structure, must be completely broken up because there is no visible intact floor elements after the collapse and few intact perimeter and core elements. (There were some, but I doubt that they are even the majority, so complete was the destruction)


Things tend to end up broken if you drop them from great heights.


If you take one floor element and drop it on the floor element below one of two things can happen:

1) The lower element can be unseated, in which case it offers little or no resistance. In this scenario the speed increases but there is no mechanism for producing the damage to the floors, since the only place that the energy to cause the damage can come from is the speed of the collapse.

2) The collapse could be halted momentarily as the lower element gives resistance, this allows the upper element to become broken up and even possibly compacted, but it requires the speed to decrease significantly in relation to the new mass added to the process, as is visible in Verinage demolitions.

OS'ers want 1) and 2) to happen simultaneously. This is magical thinking with no empirical support behind it.

If you dropped unattached floor element from the height of one story onto another floor element on the ground, neither would be completely destroyed (or even badly damaged I would venture, OS'ers are so fond of pointing out how lightweight the reinforced concrete was). So the energy to destroy the floors must be taken from elsewhere in the process, specifically the structure and integrity of the upper falling body.

By that I am implying that with each subsequent crush the ability of the remaining upper structure to do further work is reduced.


Your ideas about the collapse are unimaginative. Or in other words, you are just making stuff up so that you can reject what you call the OS. For starters, the whole idea that just one floor element falls on the next is completely wrong. Any conclusion derived from that idea is of course also wrong.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




It is not irrelevant. The columns did not need to be destroyed. They could simply broke off at the place they are bolted together (and many did).


So let me get this straight, the building just fell apart in mid-air like Jenga blocks?


Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-ght



Looks like something is thinking of magical exploding concrete...

edit on 11-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


I can't help that you can't wrap you mind around it. Just look at the images of ground zero. Lots and lots of columns with minor damage.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


The model DOESN'T represent what happened cant you see that as I have explained before the the FLOORS can fall internally its a tube within a tube design. Care to explain how the concrete slabs fell on this building to the ground floor then.



Under psikeyhackr anok and your reasoning NOTHING could have made it all the way to the ground floor!
Care to explain!



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   




I will but in. That building is empty and looks like they are playing with explosives. care to source the picture?



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 



Care to explain what a CONCRETE BRIDGE has to do with a Steel framed building cladd in glass and aluminium, apples with apples, was the bridge made with 4-5" thick concrete like the floors of the WTC.

Most of the dust from WTC was sheetrock thousands of sq m in the building and also the sprayed on fire protection would have created lots of dust as well but you guys just ignore these facts!

The only people who think all the dust was concrete is you guys.

edit on 11-7-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


The model DOESN'T represent what happened cant you see that as I have explained before the the FLOORS can fall internally its a tube within a tube design. Care to explain how the concrete slabs fell on this building to the ground floor then.



Under psikeyhackr anok and your reasoning NOTHING could have made it all the way to the ground floor!
Care to explain!



I will but in. That building is empty and looks like they are playing with explosives. care to source the picture?



Google Ronan Point

Building occupied see what assumptions do!!!



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Here is another example of partial progressive collapse:

www.hvnieuws.nl...



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Here is another example of partial progressive collapse:

www.hvnieuws.nl...


NOW according to psikey,anok,darkwings and a few others that could NEVER happen lets see them explain that!



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Google Ronan Point

Building occupied see what assumptions do!!!


Googled it gas explosion caused four floors of a flimsy design to collapse. North has 92 floors intact at time of implosion. And the north tower was a lot more stronger than that example. 18 damaged and falling floors could not take out the next 92 intact floors. Like you said all the way to the ground floor. I don't even see the logic here. you're totally excluding the core of the towers. you know the core right? Its not a comparable picture. The core was built to support all the floors. Just disappears, magic right? Anyway even the OP has abandoned this thread because he was getting ripped in his own thread. The OP claims 30%+ left of the tower after collapse. This thread is done. The OFFICIAL STORY is bunk. Find me one credible demolition worker that believes the official story.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Here is another example of partial progressive collapse:

www.hvnieuws.nl...


There balconies, not even comparable. Geez guys, does one of you have the blue print skematics of the twin towers? Lets look at the comparison you're trying to make



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
The day believe that 92 intact floors imploded in 10 secs without any help from explosives is the day I have lose my mind.

Look at the following picture there is no way.
Core and steel frame just disappears in record time... Um ok



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Here is another example of partial progressive collapse:

www.hvnieuws.nl...


There balconies, not even comparable. Geez guys, does one of you have the blue print skematics of the twin towers? Lets look at the comparison you're trying to make


Well according to ANOK what you see is impossible under his take of the laws of motion!!!



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
The day believe that 92 intact floors imploded in 10 secs without any help from explosives is the day I have lose my mind.

Look at the following picture there is no way.
Core and steel frame just disappears in record time... Um ok



You do know that the cross braced towers at the corners of the core are for the cranes and were removed!

700-800 TONS of concrete held up by 2no 5/8" bolts at either end of the trusses thats what kept the floors up!
If the floor connections fail under shear then guess what !

OH and it wasn't 10 secs!
edit on 11-7-2011 by wmd_2008 because: line added



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





Care to explain what a CONCRETE BRIDGE has to do with a Steel framed building cladd in glass and aluminium, apples with apples, was the bridge made with 4-5" thick concrete like the floors of the WTC.


Please follow the conversation.




NOW according to psikey,anok,darkwings and a few others that could NEVER happen lets see them explain that!


It does help to understand our position before you snipe.

There is nothing impossible about the picture you are referring to. There is nothing odd about progressive collapses, but what you see at WTC was not a progressive pancaking collapse.

A) It happened way way way too fast (no need to quible over 10 seconds or 15, we should be talking 30 to 45 seconds)

B) The picture you showed is not a COMPLETE collapse, whereas the WTC was, heck in your picture the concrete didn't even manage to come off the walls.

C) There is no significant pile of stuff at the bottom of the WTC.


edit on 11-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Not 10 secs wow, that's all you have to say for me to know you're deluded.

10 secs / 92 floors of north tower = 9 floors a second.

The official story is so far fetched that it's funny.

how long does a floor take to totally demolish and pulverize the next floor including the core?

How many seconds do you think it took the north tower to collapse?




edit on 11-7-2011 by MasterAndrew because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2011 by MasterAndrew because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
23
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join