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.

 

An Explosive New 9/11 Charge

page: 7
26
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Lots of comments made since I was last on well Yankee I may just reg with Letsroll wont be until end of the week at the earliest due to work commitments.

Now Yankee you claim to have some construction experience well so do I, in case others have not seen this before when I left school I worked for a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company in the design/drawing office the bulk of my subjects at school were physics and engineering based.

First of all Physics,Maths,Applied Mechanics (sort of applied physics) technical drawing and a few others English Geography etc, then Higher level Physics,Maths,Engineering Science(sort more advanced applied physics) and Engineering drawing. Then Civil Eng at college (day release paid for by employer).

I have worked in construction for over 30+ yrs, now work on site most of the time advising engineers, architects and contractors on the selection correct use and testing of structural fixings.

So I would say I have a bit more knowledge and PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE than 99% who comment on 9/11 threads on here and other forums!!!

Lets get one thing straight the DUST was not all the floors as some claim in a structure like that you had 1000's of sq mtrs of sheetrock, the sprayed on fire protection and a host of other things that would have produced dust ok W1LL !

As for the walls/core etc the design stated that the core took gravity loads (well the bulk) the walls the wind load (would also have to take its own gravity load) the floors obviously braced the 2 together (tube in tube)

If you look at any construction photograph the walls and core were NEVER built more than 1-2 levels above the floor system because they braced the 2 together.

You cant have a high SLIM column of steel or anything for that matter because of slenderness ratio or slim column buckling.


In practice, buckling is characterized by a sudden failure of a structural member subjected to high compressive stress, where the actual compressive stress at the point of failure is less than the ultimate compressive stresses that the material is capable of withstanding


Underlined the important bits!!!!!

As some as floors failed the towers were DOOMED it is that simple, more construction education for you guys later off to site to sort out someones F&*^ UP (why dont people look at instructions/labels)




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


And now for something completely different...its like a tag-team Monty Python troop, seriously. Aren't you also a photographer?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


yes wmd i used the term implode.....as in fell onto it's own foot print.....simple as....should i over complicate things.

when one removes internal structures.....the structure implodes upon itself....i purposely did not use a term explode....as for me i did not see when i was watching the live news casts on that day any kind of exploding structure...i saw three Steel frame buildings implode upon themselves.

that is why i am working on a simulation that replicates that effect.

I also notice in another thread how you post your abillities and assume others do not have your capacity for understanding building construction...A bit errogant i would say.

I as a so called truther will say the same as the so called Debunkers do....Makes no difference...as your abilities still do not represent the whole story as it is still speculative on all parties part, as all eveidence was QUICKLY taken on a slow boat to China for melt down.......

I can go on about my skills and knowledge...which i have stated in past threads....but 30+ years of my own building experience has meant nothing so why should yours make any difference.

just as many people who do seek the truth....it makes no differences what anyones particular expertise is as no one really cares now do they.....just as pilots ,firemen,engineers,architects and a great many others professions get dragged across the carpet.

soon as someone asks a question...the Debunkers come up with more questions...yet no real answers.

Just as i am sure you can say verbatim how the buildings did come down i can say verbatim how they did not....I will not repeat over the years here what i have stated as it is all been said in so many threads and i have provided my own work and analysis.

curious thing when people from the OS side try say things against the truthers they do not provide their own analysis....yet the truthers do so over and over again....the OS just keeps going back to a very flawed NIST report.

if you want some analysis....just go into many of the past threads...as you try to take one word IMPLODE and throw in a question mark...and try to make it seem ignorant in some strange fashion.....typical already.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


nice post plube.. reminds me of an old adage "don't feed the trolls" -Unknown philosopher

reply to post by wmd_2008
 


R u serious?. you seem mad, its ok dont be mad.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Lots of comments made since I was last on well Yankee I may just reg with Letsroll wont be until end of the week at the earliest due to work commitments.

Now Yankee you claim to have some construction experience well so do I, in case others have not seen this before when I left school I worked for a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company in the design/drawing office the bulk of my subjects at school were physics and engineering based.

First of all Physics,Maths,Applied Mechanics (sort of applied physics) technical drawing and a few others English Geography etc, then Higher level Physics,Maths,Engineering Science(sort more advanced applied physics) and Engineering drawing. Then Civil Eng at college (day release paid for by employer).

I have worked in construction for over 30+ yrs, now work on site most of the time advising engineers, architects and contractors on the selection correct use and testing of structural fixings.

So I would say I have a bit more knowledge and PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE than 99% who comment on 9/11 threads on here and other forums!!!

Lets get one thing straight the DUST was not all the floors as some claim in a structure like that you had 1000's of sq mtrs of sheetrock, the sprayed on fire protection and a host of other things that would have produced dust ok W1LL !

As for the walls/core etc the design stated that the core took gravity loads (well the bulk) the walls the wind load (would also have to take its own gravity load) the floors obviously braced the 2 together (tube in tube)

If you look at any construction photograph the walls and core were NEVER built more than 1-2 levels above the floor system because they braced the 2 together.

You cant have a high SLIM column of steel or anything for that matter because of slenderness ratio or slim column buckling.


In practice, buckling is characterized by a sudden failure of a structural member subjected to high compressive stress, where the actual compressive stress at the point of failure is less than the ultimate compressive stresses that the material is capable of withstanding


Underlined the important bits!!!!!

As some as floors failed the towers were DOOMED it is that simple, more construction education for you guys later off to site to sort out someones F&*^ UP (why dont people look at instructions/labels)



The funny thing is you never built a tower or skyscraper before in your life.

Rule #1 the concrete is stronger on the lower floors ,weaker on the higher floors. (In reference to the mixer of concrete). The steel is thicker on the lower floors including with T 'n T core.


So because rule #1 is a dam fact , your floor by floor collapsing idea is a dam idiotic lie.


Rule #2 both planes did not damage all the steel columns on the impacted floors.


So if there was a failure(with the beams) , the sudden drop it would have had a tipping motion and continued to tip and fall at that angel. That didn't happen it want strait down with all four sides failing.


You claim you know about construction. Care to explain how 116ton 767 jet holding 22,000 gallons of fuel can pulverize 500,000 tons of concrete(10,000psi) and mild steel???????



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by -W1LL
reply to post by Yankee451
 


can jet airplanes or any airplane bring down a skyscraper? NO and there have been other instances of planes hitting skyscrapers penetrating the outer wall burning for hours and hours.



So you can give us a link to a large passenger aircraft hitting a large steel framed skyscraper of tube in tube design that burned for hours and didn't fall? I BET YOU CANT!

Oh and they didn't fall into their own footprint their footprint was one acre sq did all the mass fall into that NO I



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1

Care to explain how 116ton 757 jet holding 22,000 gallons of jet fuel can pulverize 500,000 tons of concrete(10,000psi) and mild steel.?




10,000psi ? Where did you get that from????

Here is a test done on a structural fixing see the crack because it was installed in the wrong position that was 11 floors up.



Here is a typical floor truss design from the towers a 4" thick layer of flooring grade concrete was on top!!!



Floorslabs are the SAME all the way down except fot those listed in the info below. OK!

The trusses were held up by the little sections of angle iron shown on here.



Some info for you!

Quantities of steel (structural steelwork in one tower) total: 78,000 tonnes
per square meter gross area: 166.6 kg
per cubic meter: 44.5 kg
per square meter effective floor area: 244.5 kg


Some other info for you!


On the 41st and 42nd floors, both towers will house mechanical equipment. To accommodate the heavy loads, the floors are designed as structural steel frame slabs. All other floors from the ninth to the top (except for 75 and 76, which will also carry mechanical equipment) have typical truss floor joists and steel decking. Typical office floors have 4-in. thick slabs of composite construction using top chord knuckles of the joists (trusses), which extend into the slab, as shear connectors. On mechanical floors, composite action is provided by welded stud shear connectors. So the first 8 + 6 = 14 stories, and the 41st, 42nd, 75th and 76th floors, used solid steel beams in place of trusses. Also, the top stories had special steel reinforcing diagonals called outrigger trusses.


Well thats another lesson for you want any more!

edit on 15-8-2011 by wmd_2008 because: image added

edit on 15-8-2011 by wmd_2008 because: LINE ADDED



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


So plube
30+ yrs doing what joinery,painting, kitchen fitting or is it something to do with STRUCTURES ,many many trades in the construction industry that doesn't mean they know what loads etc a structure is subjected to or how it deals with those loads.

So what do you actually do?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


So we need to trust the experts, since we're obviously not qualified to think for ourselves. Check.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


What lesson, all you post gibberish crap.

Show me where you get that info on the picture of concrete and the quotes. Which the quotes mean nothing or add nothing to my question.


Its obvious you have never built anything higher than 10 floors . If you did you have known my rule #1.


The 10,000psi is standard for the NYC building code at that time. Now its 14,000psi. Look it up.


And as far as the each tower weighing 500k tons. Here is the site: hypertextbook.com...





Honestly your horrible giving lessons. Stick to your day job, if you have one.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


And now for something completely different...its like a tag-team Monty Python troop, seriously. Aren't you also a photographer?



I take it even you have heard of hobbies mine is photography among one of many.
edit on 15-8-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


What lesson, all you post gibberish crap.

Show me where you get that info on the picture of concrete and the quotes. Which the quotes mean nothing or add nothing to my question.


Its obvious you have never built anything higher than 10 floors . If you did you have known my rule #1.

The 10,000psi is standard for the NYC building code at that time. Now its 14,000psi. Look it up.

And as far as the each tower weighing 500k tons. Here is the site: hypertextbook.com...

Honestly your horrible giving lessons. Stick to your day job, if you have one.



10000 psi is almost 70n/mm2 that is not standard concrete YOU LOOK THAT UP!

In the UK standard concrete would be about 25/30 /mm2 anything above 50n/mm2 is very heavy duty and you wouldn't need that mix for 4" thick concrete floors on steel decking.

What age are you about 10!



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


And now for something completely different...its like a tag-team Monty Python troop, seriously. Aren't you also a photographer?



I take it even you have heard of hobbies mine is photography among one of may.


I have "heard" because you were blustering about being so well versed in photography that you were going to dismantle the claim that Tina Cart, Wolfgang Staehle and Richard Clark all share the same perspective and moment in time in their photographs.

But nothing ever happened with that.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


And now for something completely different...its like a tag-team Monty Python troop, seriously. Aren't you also a photographer?



I take it even you have heard of hobbies mine is photography among one of may.


I have "heard" because you were blustering about being so well versed in photography that you were going to dismantle the claim that Tina Cart, Wolfgang Staehle and Richard Clark all share the same perspective and moment in time in their photographs.

But nothing ever happened with that.


I think I did reply to that but will need to look back but going with your track record on supposed video fakery an your tv line drawing system would it be worth the effort?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
I think I did reply to that but will need to look back but going with your track record on supposed video fakery an your tv line drawing system would it be worth the effort?



Judging by your reluctance to discuss the details of my post, instead focusing on something as inconsequential as the quality of the graphic used to demonstrate my point, I'd say my point was dead on.

Attacking the messenger and not the message...tsk, tsk, tsk.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by wmd_2008
I think I did reply to that but will need to look back but going with your track record on supposed video fakery an your tv line drawing system would it be worth the effort?



Judging by your reluctance to discuss the details of my post, instead focusing on something as inconsequential as the quality of the graphic used to demonstrate my point, I'd say my point was dead on.

Attacking the messenger and not the message...tsk, tsk, tsk.


I would say the message was attacked because you claimed something that was impossible especially with the technology you linked to!



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by wmd_2008
I think I did reply to that but will need to look back but going with your track record on supposed video fakery an your tv line drawing system would it be worth the effort?



Judging by your reluctance to discuss the details of my post, instead focusing on something as inconsequential as the quality of the graphic used to demonstrate my point, I'd say my point was dead on.

Attacking the messenger and not the message...tsk, tsk, tsk.


I would say the message was attacked because you claimed something that was impossible especially with the technology you linked to!


And again, rather than a sweeping statement of derision, how about hopping on a thread and showing me where I'm wrong?



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by wmd_2008
I think I did reply to that but will need to look back but going with your track record on supposed video fakery an your tv line drawing system would it be worth the effort?



Judging by your reluctance to discuss the details of my post, instead focusing on something as inconsequential as the quality of the graphic used to demonstrate my point, I'd say my point was dead on.

Attacking the messenger and not the message...tsk, tsk, tsk.


I would say the message was attacked because you claimed something that was impossible especially with the technology you linked to!


And again, rather than a sweeping statement of derision, how about hopping on a thread and showing me where I'm wrong?



Silly me I thought we did that weeks and weeks ago when I showed everyone what your tv system was capable of! You know the coloured lines on a tv screen when you claimed the planes did not exist because you can't understand impact energy and materials.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


What lesson, all you post gibberish crap.

Show me where you get that info on the picture of concrete and the quotes. Which the quotes mean nothing or add nothing to my question.


Its obvious you have never built anything higher than 10 floors . If you did you have known my rule #1.

The 10,000psi is standard for the NYC building code at that time. Now its 14,000psi. Look it up.

And as far as the each tower weighing 500k tons. Here is the site: hypertextbook.com...

Honestly your horrible giving lessons. Stick to your day job, if you have one.



10000 psi is almost 70n/mm2 that is not standard concrete YOU LOOK THAT UP!

In the UK standard concrete would be about 25/30 /mm2 anything above 50n/mm2 is very heavy duty and you wouldn't need that mix for 4" thick concrete floors on steel decking.

What age are you about 10!




Wow, your either dumb or purposely twisting my words. I'm not talking about concrete slabs. I'm talking about lower floors of the core and caps of the footprint. That's where most of stress is present. Slabs? I know the standard is 4000psi. And? This isn't some 30 story building Sir Jack. But it all makes sense since your a brit. I forgot of all the skyscrapers in london. What a joke.



But screw this psi crap. Answer me this brit, how can 2 planes that weight 116 tons each carrying 22k gallons of fuel can pulverize,disintegrate,bring down,collapse or tear down(however you want to call it) 3 towers weighing 500,000 tons.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Now you see Wmd did i go and assume a total disbelief in what you do.....like i said you can go see the work i have provided over the years and if you want you could go see what my occupation is by going through previous threads.....i have been on here for years writing.....about all things concerning the engineering behind the towers....there is no need to drag all that up over and over as the debunkers would try to have people do.....just go do some searching and you can reply to any thing i have written.
you can find out the schools i went to and even some structures i have hand a hand in....but then i can honestly say none have been hit by planes.
Also just by clicking on my 911 thread you can check out how insane i am and how i think and whom the real perpetrators of this false flag op are......you see i take two approaches.....first this was a crime...and should have been treated as such....but was it...nope....it was treated like a big cover up....2nd approach has been based on my skills and understanding of the structural elements of the the twin towers and building sevens steel frame design.
So you see it is up to you at this point to go searching....because over the years i have been dicussing 911 i will keep putting forward my analysis through my skills and knowledge base despite the debunkers failed attempts at backing the OS's deadhorse......It has been torn to shreds on so many levels it has become laughable....
did planes hit the towers......yes
did said planes do damage to the towers....yes
did fires start.....yes.

Did the planes and fires alone bring down three streel frame buildings ..No.

can you find info out there backing the OS's story of 19 ill trained pilots, whom on the same day co-ordinate four hijackings of which three planes successfully hit their targets they just happen to find their passports and id left in convienent places then watch as building seven came down (which seems to have suffered more and more damage as the years have gone on yet all evidence was on a slow boat to china)....and we the people are supposed to believe this crud....and debunkers come on trying to say this is definately how it happen and are not willing to even think one bit outside the box that they are possibly being lied to because corporations and governments are so honest and could never inflict such pains on it's own people.
yes and we are to believe lucky Larry did not have a clue as to the fact he was going to rake in millions on two out of date asbesto filled towers of which were worthless in themselves.

you see Wmd ......to me there are more unanswered questions than there are answered.....but answering anyquestions on the definate....on boths sides of the argument is a near impossible task because of the big cover up.




top topics



 
26
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join