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.

 

What is Crushing This Tower?

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by ANOK
 


Using the hambro floor joist system the internal columns would not do much once a problem started. The joist would simply fall apart.


Even IF the joist system fell apart, you still can't ignore the laws of motion.

Let's say you have 110 floors all held up with toothpicks instead of 47 massive core columns and the outer mesh, take out the toothpicks from the 95th floor and let it drop, the concrete will not crush itself to the ground. The toothpicks would all break but the top would either topple off to the side, or it would end up sitting on top of the rest of the concrete once it hits resistance, it is NOT going to keep crushing all the concrete bellow it, simply impossible.

What caused the 47 massive core columns to telescope themselves through the path of increasing most resistance? None of you OSers have even attempted to answer that using the known laws of motion (the only way to explain it).

You really need to look at NISTs core columns data (the data they used for modeling) and get an understanding how massive the core columns were and how it would be impossible for it to collapse the way it did.

Watch this gif...

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...



OSers just keep blowing this off whenever I bring it up. For obvious reasons, you can't explain it and it contradicts your claims. In fact even NIST contradicts a lot of your claims, like pancake collapse.


edit on 6/30/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by ANOK
 


Using the hambro floor joist system the internal columns would not do much once a problem started. The joist would simply fall apart.


Even IF the joist system fell apart, you still can't ignore the laws of motion.

Let's say you have 110 floors all held up with toothpicks instead of 47 massive core columns and the outer mesh, take out the toothpicks from the 95th floor and let it drop, the concrete will not crush itself to the ground. The toothpicks would all break but the top would either topple off to the side, or it would end up sitting on top of the rest of the concrete once it hits resistance, it is NOT going to keep crushing all the concrete bellow it, simply impossible.

What caused the 47 massive core columns to telescope themselves through the path of increasing most resistance? None of you OSers have even attempted to answer that using the known laws of motion (the only way to explain it).

You really need to look at NISTs core columns data (the data they used for modeling) and get an understanding how massive the core columns were and how it would be impossible for it to collapse the way it did.

Watch this gif...

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...



OSers just keep blowing this off whenever I bring it up. For obvious reasons, you can't explain it and it contradicts your claims. In fact even NIST contradicts a lot of your claims, like pancake collapse.


edit on 6/30/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


The core columns falling eventually in the way that they did is what puzzles me too.
The OP's picture is not really a mystery, as both upper parts did fall over in a tree like fashion in the case of both towers, and in both towers the rest of the building was ejected horizontally as pretty much dust, girders and cladding as seen in this video from David Chandler,

www.youtube.com...

Before the fadeout you will see once again the core columns still standing in part, as seen in other video and pictures. There are two events that I try to explain to myself in a mundane way when looking at that video and others.

The first is the concrete mostly turned to dust, could the floor concrete have become dried out? not likely as there would moisture in plenty occurring naturally in such a building or most anywhere else for that matter.

The other thing is the bolts securing all the columns inner and outer, they seem to have failed in a grand matter in the lower portions, never mind that the outer column modular sections in the lower portions have disintegrated like the concrete, most of the modular sections you see still intact appear to be from the upper portions, (they did however find a lot of intact bolts with their washers cracked) but that does not explain all those singular parts from the outer sections, and I don't mean the aluminium dressings.

So, it's really only the core that did fall more or less straight down, but after the rest.

All else fell away with force as if squirted out, except that there was nothing from above as a force to do the squirting.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
This video at 19:50 shows the center columns standing very high as the whole building has already collapsed even the outside shell. Then the center columns begin to fall. Which shows the center columns fell completely seperate of the rest of the building and floors. The center columns were not under the floors of concrete so yes hey can stand even when the rest of the bulding is gone.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
....So, it's really only the core that did fall more or less straight down, but after the rest.

All else fell away with force as if squirted out, except that there was nothing from above as a force to do the squirting.


Yeah, there is a reason no explanation comes from the OS as to how the core failed.

The core columns were continuous from bottom to top, welded together. If any section of it failed it would only be able to fall to one side, as they started to do. Both towers tilted, tower two was more noticeable. There is no way a section can fall straight down through an increasing mass, unless they were cut at an angle.

Most OSers seem to miss that for the core to fail that means 47 core columns all failing at the same time. 47 columns that increased in size substantially from top to bottom. If any failed other columns would take up the load. But how any even failed in the first place is a mystery, we know the truss failure hypothesis does not explain it. Novas image of the trusses causing the columns to break is ridiculous and throws known physics out the window. The MSM is directed at the ignorant masses, it's not designed to make people think but to maintain the status quo.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Look up video captured of the collapse close up. I think the very very loud explosions give you a good idea of what pulverized the tower.


For comparison look up this video of a controlled demolition.



The last row of explosions which are in fast succession, sound very similiar to those of the WTC building, which are even faster. Notice that after the charges went off the building itself coming down does not make that much noise, at least not that much makes it on tape.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Look up video captured of the collapse close up. I think the very very loud explosions give you a good idea of what pulverized the tower.


For comparison look up this video of a controlled demolition.



The last row of explosions which are in fast succession, sound very similiar to those of the WTC building, which are even faster. Notice that after the charges went off the building itself coming down does not make that much noise, at least not that much makes it on tape.


Well each floor had between 700-800 tons of concrete in them also the steel decking it was poured on plus the trusses can you please tell everyone how often you have heard 700-800+ tons of steel and concrete falling from many hundreds of feet to compare that with the twin towers collapse? care to give us an answer!



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


YOU know and WE know they didn't all fail at the same time did they ANOK or we wouldn't have seen the spire

Thousands of tons of concrete and steel were falling do you think none of it impacted the core?

The South Tower leand more due to the position of the impact YOU know that ANOK.



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 


YOU know and WE know they didn't all fail at the same time did they ANOK or we wouldn't have seen the spire


'The Spire' was just one corner of 47 columns. Yes the majority did fall at the same time, as evidenced by the symmetrical collapse, not one part of the towers fell ahead of any other.


Thousands of tons of concrete and steel were falling do you think none of it impacted the core?


So what if it did? How does that cause the core to telescope through an increasing path of most resistance. You are not addressing the physics, but throwing out assumptions.

The was far more steel in the core than the trusses and floor pans, that only a part of would impact the core in any way. Maybe you do not realise the massive size of the core?

Here is the NIST core data, all 47 core columns and their size throughout here length demonstrated using gif...

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...


The South Tower leand more due to the position of the impact YOU know that ANOK.


Did I ask why it leaned more? Again I fail to see the point of your comment. Whether it leaned more because of the impact point, or because the 'explosives' on the lower floors in tower two triggered a little later than tower one, doesn't contradict my other points and is just irrelevant speculation.

When are you going to address the actual physics. i.e. the laws of motion?


edit on 7/11/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



When will you show how the connections on a floor below the impacted floor as the mass fell helps the impacted floor resist the load WHEN will you show us! THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING!

Care to EXPLAIN how this could happen it couldn't under your laws of motion!!



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



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Cassius666
Look up video captured of the collapse close up. I think the very very loud explosions give you a good idea of what pulverized the tower.


For comparison look up this video of a controlled demolition.



The last row of explosions which are in fast succession, sound very similiar to those of the WTC building, which are even faster. Notice that after the charges went off the building itself coming down does not make that much noise, at least not that much makes it on tape.


Well each floor had between 700-800 tons of concrete in them also the steel decking it was poured on plus the trusses can you please tell everyone how often you have heard 700-800+ tons of steel and concrete falling from many hundreds of feet to compare that with the twin towers collapse? care to give us an answer!


Thats the thing. You hear the explosions even before the first piece of debry hits the floor. Also the noise has a regular pattern. Also a falling building does not sound like explosions.

But here you have something more substantial.



Apparently the supporting structures were deep inside the building. Thats why you get those barely audible "hushabooms" like with WTC 7.
edit on 11-7-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

When are you going to address the actual physics. i.e. the laws of motion?



Your education begins here:

www.nmsr.org...

Feel free to rebut it. With numbers, calcs, etc.

Failure to do so will be noted by intelligent truth seekers like Charlie Veitch, and will be seen as evidence that zero truthers know what they're talking about, but only PRETEND to know what they're talking about.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Hi Joey

Looks like your link makes them think, what will now happen they will ignore this thread as your link shows some on here as idiots because it makes their claims and understanding of the physics of this look bad.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Your education begins here:

www.nmsr.org...

Feel free to rebut it. With numbers, calcs, etc.

Failure to do so will be noted by intelligent truth seekers like Charlie Veitch, and will be seen as evidence that zero truthers know what they're talking about, but only PRETEND to know what they're talking about.


Why can't you explain it yourself? Why do you have to link to someone else's work? I want to debate you not someone else's work. It's really laim and lazy to just throw a link at someone and then expect them to criticize it.
You want me to work without putting in any effort of your own. What if I simply replied to you with a link to someone else's work?

That article is so full of stuff that already been debunked, you've been here long enough to know that.

Please explain to me in your own words, using the laws of motion, no numbers or calcs needed as it is obvious 15 floors dropping on 95 can not cause a complete crushing of the building. 95 floors has far more mass than 15 floors. You don't need math to tell you that. Math is only required when the details are not obvious.

But regardless no one can do any maths because we don't have enough information, anyone who thinks they can is clueless.

Your link makes a lot of assumptions in order to work, for example it claims...


Several support columns were cut by the airplane impacts,


Which we know for at least one tower is not true, and there is no evidence for the other. How can an aluminum plane go though one set of steel columns, and still have the energy to go though even larger core columns? Most of the planes Ke would be lost on impact. Those core columns were huge. But even IF several were severed, there were 47 columns, you could lose several and the weight would just redistribute to the other columns.

Then it goes on...


but did soften the trusses enought to where they sagged, and pulled inward on the perimeter walls.


Which has also been debunked. How can SAGGING trusses put a pulling force on the perimeter columns?

When steel heats up it expands. It will try to expand, which means it will be trying to push the columns outwards, it can't do that so it SAGS instead. So if the expanding steel can not push outwards, it also can not pull inwards. It SAGS because that is the only direction the expansion can go. It will continue to sag or stop, it can not put a force on the columns enough to cause them to snap. Where would all that energy come from? The trusses had far less mass than any of the columns they were attached to. It's nonsense hollywood physics.


edit on 7/15/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Hi Joey

Looks like your link makes them think, what will now happen they will ignore this thread as your link shows some on here as idiots because it makes their claims and understanding of the physics of this look bad.


No it doesn't, it's nonsense.

Maybe you guys should stop getting all your information from 911 specific sites, and start looking at independent sites that explains how physics works and put it in context. But of course you have to understand the physics in the first place to do that...



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
This guy:



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 



When will you show how the connections on a floor below the impacted floor as the mass fell helps the impacted floor resist the load WHEN will you show us! THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING!


It takes work to break connections, crush floors etc. Breaking connections would reduce the Ke of the falling mass. Floors stacking up would cause resistance. You have 95 floors still intact and connected to columns, you have 15 floors falling of the same construction. The core columns were more massive towards the bottom, that is an increase of mass to collapse through.

There were no floors left in the footprints, which means they were ejected during the collapse, which means every time a floor was impacted mass was lost, ke was lost.

For your hypothesis to work Ke would have to have increased to overcome increasing resistance.


Care to EXPLAIN how this could happen it couldn't under your laws of motion!!


That is what I have been doing for years now. It is up to you to explain how the towers did not follow the laws of motion.


edit on 7/15/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   


Hi Joey Looks like your link makes them think,


Yeah, that link is making me think big time. From the unprofessional circa mid 90's web design, to the mainstream media propaganda (John what's his last name again?), to the piss poor spelling errors, it is making me think why should someone as ignorant, uneducated and clueless as this be given the time of day?

Wanna laugh? Straight from the website, check out the words 'Archbitects', 'sing' and 'acount' below.


"More recently, Gage's website, Archbitects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, has said of the model presented here that...This isn't true at all. I take full acount of the columns and other supports sing the approach outlined in Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis" by Bazant and Zhou:"

www.nmsr.org...

If you want us to take your source seriously, a first grade proofreader and a third rate amateur web designer may help.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
The official explanation is the tower collapsed due to a combination of airplane fuel and the dislodging of fireproof insulation.


(1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel.


wtc.nist.gov...

So if steel can naturally withstand extreme temperatures of heat why bother insulating the steel with a fire proof insulation? The steel itself is fire proof. And how much dislodging can we really be led to believe was caused by the plane impact? The plane did not hit every single steel beam so how could a significant number of steel beams lose their fire proof insulation, if such a thing is even necessary? At a certain point there should have been some semblance of a tower, not pulverized dust as we saw on 9/11.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


If you worked in the construction industry you would have some idea why steel has either fire protection sprayed on or has fire proof boards put round it.

I suggest you Google things that you don't understand before you make stupid comments on a subject you know nothing about!!!

No one said the fire protection was knocked off all the steel did they you just made that assumption that's all, thermal expansion due to heat can cause problems on a steel structure again you can Google that.
edit on 16-7-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join