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.

 

FIVE QUESTIONS: The Twin Towers and a Controlled Demonlition: HOW?

page: 30
14
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
In regard to your thread title.

Where was the ISS located at the time?

Also what is ATS about? Is it a conspiracy site where members take all possibilities and dig to find the truth? Have any cases been found/decided or proven? Do you dig and leave no stone unturned?

In regard to 911 and the events leading up to and after it. What picture do you see because i see a different picture.

I see a picture where orchestrating events to hide the debt away from the american people and the world by creating an act of terrorism, sacrificing lives to instill fear and hatred and also getting a footing in another land that has an abundance with certain elements/minerals where if you had control of would save your economy. Lithium being one oil being another. Technological markets are thriving. I am pointing!

Killing many birds with one stone. 2 infact. They got the desired effect hence why the pentagon survived, they couldnt destroy the pentagon as its their defence/offence hub......DO YOU SEE
edit on 21-12-2011 by Lee78 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Hurst22
 
During the American Civil War, Confederate raiders used to pull up railroad rails and heat them over a wood(usually the railroad ties) fire until they were soft enough to bend, then twist them into circles and even pretzel shapes to prevent them from being laid back down and being reused.

Steel rails, wood fire. It doesn't take Mapp gas, just takes fuel and air. Fuel like jet fuel, along with paper, wood and plastic.


edit on 21-12-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lee78
In regard to your thread title.

Where was the ISS located at the time?

Also what is ATS about? Is it a conspiracy site where members take all possibilities and dig to find the truth? Have any cases been found/decided or proven? Do you dig and leave no stone unturned?

In regard to 911 and the events leading up to and after it. What picture do you see because i see a different picture.

I see a picture where orchestrating events to hide the debt away from the american people and the world by creating an act of terrorism, sacrificing lives to instill fear and hatred and also getting a footing in another land that has an abundance with certain elements/minerals where if you had control of would save your economy. Lithium being one oil being another. Technological markets are thriving. I am pointing!

Killing many birds with one stone. 2 infact. They got the desired effect hence why the pentagon survived, they couldnt destroy the pentagon as its their defence/offence hub......DO YOU SEE
edit on 21-12-2011 by Lee78 because: (no reason given)


There are many things still left to be explored and a name in particular that was a WTC tennant that just so happens to be the main construction company also involved in Dubai. Turner round and see the light.
en.wikipedia.org... and i am not the only one who suspects foul play other than the foul play we are led to believe.

edit on 21-12-2011 by Lee78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
Steel rails, wood fire. It doesn't take Mapp gas, just takes fuel and air. Fuel like jet fuel, along with paper, wood and plastic.


The massive steel box columns were not train rails.

Try heating a box column of that size over a fire and making it hot enough to bend in an hour. It's not going to happen. Heating those box columns over a fire would be like trying to heat up that train rail with a lighter.

Learn about heat transfer. The steel takes time to heat up, it will never get as hot as the fire is. Unless the flames ware in direct contact the steel will not get very hot. The fires simply would not get hot enough in an hour to be able to transfer enough heat to the steel in an hour...


It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.

www.doctorfire.com...


Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com...

Regardless though, even if the steel exposed to fire did get hot enough bend, why would it be able to cause all the steel that wasn't hot to also fail?

And why has no other steel framed building ever collapsed from fire?


edit on 12/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
And why has no other steel framed building ever collapsed from fire?


Not that old false claim again. In 1967, steel McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire. There are others that we can [again] bring forward. The damage to the supports plus the fires is what caused the collapse.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


The floor trusses were made of 1 1/4" bar stock - next time go to one of those "big box: warehouse stores
look up a ceiling (assuming have not covered them with drop ceilings). That is what supported the floor
deck at WTC

Problem with truss is that built up of light weight materials which lack heat resistance , The box columns
may not have been heated to failure point, but the floor trusses were

As the truss heated up it began to sag and pull on the exterior wall columns and floor deck

What happens when the columns sag it that sets up stress through out the entire system. Buildings are
designed with load bearing columns assumed to be at room temp and in plumb. As columns heats it
loses strenght, as it sags out of plumb the load carrying ability is severely reduced



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ANOK
 


The floor trusses were made of 1 1/4" bar stock - next time go to one of those "big box: warehouse stores
look up a ceiling (assuming have not covered them with drop ceilings). That is what supported the floor
deck at WTC

Problem with truss is that built up of light weight materials which lack heat resistance , The box columns
may not have been heated to failure point, but the floor trusses were

As the truss heated up it began to sag and pull on the exterior wall columns and floor deck

What happens when the columns sag it that sets up stress through out the entire system. Buildings are
designed with load bearing columns assumed to be at room temp and in plumb. As columns heats it
loses strenght, as it sags out of plumb the load carrying ability is severely reduced



It is just as possible as a chimney collapsing straight down through itself, or as another poster put it, as possible as a tree collapsing straight through itself.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 





The floor trusses were made of 1 1/4" bar stock - next time go to one of those "big box: warehouse stores
look up a ceiling (assuming have not covered them with drop ceilings). That is what supported the floor
deck at WTC


Those wimpy trusses, snort.




posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by ANOK
 


The floor trusses were made of 1 1/4" bar stock - next time go to one of those "big box: warehouse stores
look up a ceiling (assuming have not covered them with drop ceilings). That is what supported the floor
deck at WTC


Then please explain to me how 1 1/4" bar stock can put a pulling force on massive box columns when it sags?



If the trusses are so weak and light how do they have enough weight to cause multiple case hardened bolts to instantly break?

How do such light weight and weak trusses hold up massive box columns? They don't, the core should not have collapsed from the failure of the floors, period.

You still can not see that regardless of what held the floors up, complete collapse from gravity is not possible for other reasons than what held the floors up. Hundreds of posts, and you still don't get it.



posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Not that old false claim again. In 1967, steel McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire. There are others that we can [again] bring forward. The damage to the supports plus the fires is what caused the collapse.


You need to get your facts straight pteridine, before you dismiss facts.

That was not a 110 story building for starters. The roof system was not even close to being the same.

WTC had 88 trusses per floor. That warehouse had trusses that spanned many many more feet that at the WTC, and more widely spread. It was a roof, not a floor that is designed to hold much more weight. A roof doesn't have to be built to hold people, and furniture, machinery.



A one story warehouse type building who's roof collapsed. Not even in the same ballpark. Notice the walls are still standing for starters?

It doesn't prove sagging trusses can pull in columns. It doesn't prove that failure of a floor would cause complete failure of the building. It is not a steel framed building completely collapsing


You still need to prove that the plane severed core columns, because without that you don't have a block of floors falling. IF the core severed, why did it wait for the floor trusses to fail before it fell? You still need to prove sagging trusses can pull in columns, because without that you have no floor failure. Before you claim anything else you first need to clear up those two problems because none of your excuses explains it. You are just making it up as you go, very carefully dodging these points that are raised often.


edit on 12/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
I've wondered for a while now:

If nothing can happen that has never happened before, then how can anything ever happen for the first time?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pteridine
Not that old false claim again. In 1967, steel McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire. There are others that we can [again] bring forward. The damage to the supports plus the fires is what caused the collapse.


You need to get your facts straight pteridine, before you dismiss facts.

That was not a 110 story building for starters. The roof system was not even close to being the same.

WTC had 88 trusses per floor. That warehouse had trusses that spanned many many more feet that at the WTC, and more widely spread. It was a roof, not a floor that is designed to hold much more weight. A roof doesn't have to be built to hold people, and furniture, machinery.



A one story warehouse type building who's roof collapsed. Not even in the same ballpark. Notice the walls are still standing for starters?

It doesn't prove sagging trusses can pull in columns. It doesn't prove that failure of a floor would cause complete failure of the building. It is not a steel framed building completely collapsing


You still need to prove that the plane severed core columns, because without that you don't have a block of floors falling. IF the core severed, why did it wait for the floor trusses to fail before it fell? You still need to prove sagging trusses can pull in columns, because without that you have no floor failure. Before you claim anything else you first need to clear up those two problems because none of your excuses explains it. You are just making it up as you go, very carefully dodging these points that are raised often.


edit on 12/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo
A roof in Chicago is designed to hold much more than it's own weight. It is designed to hold a heavy snow load.

Why did the steel fail during a fire in that particular building? Did the beams decide to rust through just by chance when a fire decided to occur?

With regard to heating steel to the point that it's structural integrity is compromised, just how do they manage to melt that stuff when they cast it in manufacturing applications?

Just how can the steel deck plates in the boiler room of a ship deform and collapse under their own weight during an oil fire? They do that, you know. At least that is what the US Navy told me when I trained to fight fires, they had pics to show us... some were from a boiler room on the USS Saratoga.

The V-22 was not designed to deform steel, but that is what it does to deckplates on US Navy ships that it operates from. It burns jet fuel in it's engines. They have to install heat resistant mats to protect the decks.
navair



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 




It is just as possible as a chimney collapsing straight down through itself, or as another poster put it, as possible as a tree collapsing straight through itself.

So... Just what were the WTC towers?

Chimneys?
or
Trees?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You need to get your facts straight pteridine, before you dismiss facts.

That was not a 110 story building for starters. The roof system was not even close to being the same.

You still need to prove that the plane severed core columns, because without that you don't have a block of floors falling. IF the core severed, why did it wait for the floor trusses to fail before it fell? You still need to prove sagging trusses can pull in columns, because without that you have no floor failure. Before you claim anything else you first need to clear up those two problems because none of your excuses explains it. You are just making it up as you go, very carefully dodging these points that are raised often.



Actually, you need to read your own posts, Anok. In repeating what you have read elsewhere you make statements like " And why has no other steel framed building ever collapsed from fire?" Note that is what you said and I provided an example of steel framed building that collapsed from fire. Do try to say what you mean.

I don't have to prove anything about what the plane severed. Theorists with alternate viewpoints need to show how their theories are valid. You haven't explained why the core must fail to have the floor truss joints at the core fail. Sagging trusses with the weight of floors and contents on them should be able to pull severed columns inward. Such a movement was seen and photographed. What alternative do you propose to account for such movement?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Note that is what you said and I provided an example of steel framed building that collapsed from fire.


I stand by that claim.

You did not show a steel framed building that collapsed. You showed a roof collapse of a single story building.
The walls didn't collapse, thus it was not a building collapse it was a roof collapse. In fact the roof is still attached to the walls. I'm repeating myself because obvioulsy you either didn't read, or didn't understand my reply.

It does not prove the roof collapse could cause complete collapse of the building, because it didn't completely collapse the building.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
A roof in Chicago is designed to hold much more than it's own weight. It is designed to hold a heavy snow load.


It would still not be as strong as a WTC floors with 88 trusses closely placed.


Why did the steel fail during a fire in that particular building? Did the beams decide to rust through just by chance when a fire decided to occur?


I can't answer that without more details. But regardless it doesn't prove sagging trusses can pull in columns.
It doesn't prove the failure of a floor would cause all the floors to fail.


With regard to heating steel to the point that it's structural integrity is compromised, just how do they manage to melt that stuff when they cast it in manufacturing applications?


With controlled temperatures far above what an open air room fire can produce.


Just how can the steel deck plates in the boiler room of a ship deform and collapse under their own weight during an oil fire? They do that, you know. At least that is what the US Navy told me when I trained to fight fires, they had pics to show us... some were from a boiler room on the USS Saratoga.


Funny you mention the Sara, spent over a year on board during the first Gulf War.

Direct heat for a length of time, and it didn't cause the whole boat to collapse did it?

Again no one is saying heat does not effect steel, it does, just not to the extent of the WTC in less than an hour.

Even IF the trusses heated up, they could not pull in columns, as I explained. So you have a problem with the collapse initiation hypothesis, let alone the ensuing collapse. Even IF the core steel heated up, it would not lead to complete failure of the building. The fires effected only a small percentage of the steel, and high up in the building, leaving most of the structure unaffected.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 
Have you figured thermal expansion into your theories?

Linear expansion can account for shearing of bolts holding trusses and beams. You surely will not deny that.

Steel does not have to melt or even sag, just expand lengthwise .


edit on 22-12-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
This is one of those news clips of the twin towers supposedly been hit by planes, but could anyone please view the two clips from 2.22 onwards and tell me what caused the explosion in the second tower???
www.youtube.com...

No Plane???



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


So now a collapse has to be complete to show that steel will weaken in a fire? I only found two that completely collapsed from uncontrolled fires after being damaged from airplanes. I guess that the WTC towers are unique in that respect. Here is a partial collapse with walls down. www.interfire.org...
It was stopped by a firewall but didn't have an airplane hit it. Maybe the airplanes had something to do with the collapse of the WTC. Do you see a cause and effect or do you think that fire was the only thing bringing the towers down?



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Funny you mention the Sara, spent over a year on board during the first Gulf War.
Direct heat for a length of time, and it didn't cause the whole boat to collapse did it?


The fires onboard the Saratoga were not uncontrolled. Spumific paint and 3D firefighting make a difference although bulkheads and decks will buckle. Check the DC 3&2 manual for techniques. For examples of uncontrolled fires aboard ships, see WW2. Also look up the HMS Sheffield.
The Saratoga was known by the crew in the late 1960's as the "Sucking 60 from Dixie" and didn't suffer as many fires as the Forrestal, aka the "USS Forestfire, the worlds largest floating ashtray."



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join