Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WTC Lightweight Steel Construction

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Below is article from legandary fire protection engineer Francis Brannigan commenting on how the
construction of buildings affects their resistance to fire

Included are refernces to Meridan Plaza and First Interstate Bank fires along with how lightweight steel
construction of WTC played part in collapse

FIRE ENGINEERING - April 2002

web.ebscohost.com...




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
The buildings could have been made out of toothpicks and play-do, with non-structural steel just piled up on top, they still wouldn't have fallen the way they did.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by godfather420
The buildings could have been made out of toothpicks and play-do, with non-structural steel just piled up on top, they still wouldn't have fallen the way they did.


The chosen 1500 can't even prove that.
Can you?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


It is simple physics. Matter cannot fall at free-fall speed unless there is nothing to stop it. If the world trade center was not intentionally demolished, those buildings wouldn't have fallen into their own footprints at free-fall speed. There would be too much material blocking this type of fall. I could see the top part of the building falling to the side in the direction of the initial plane hit, but falling perfectly flat, imploding on itself?

Explain world trade center building 7's collapse, when it had no fire.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by godfather420
The buildings could have been made out of toothpicks and play-do, with non-structural steel just piled up on top, they still wouldn't have fallen the way they did.


The chosen 1500 can't even prove that.
Can you?


Proving something and getting idiots to accept the proof are two different things.

How can anyone claim that any analysis is correct if they can't even demonstrate that they have correct data on steel and concrete distributions.

Why can't anyone build a model where the top 15% can crush the rest while damaging the support components.



Why can't our engineering schools build a better model than that?

psik



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
reply to post by samkent
 


It is simple physics. Matter cannot fall at free-fall speed unless there is nothing to stop it. If the world trade center was not intentionally demolished, those buildings wouldn't have fallen into their own footprints at free-fall speed. There would be too much material blocking this type of fall. I could see the top part of the building falling to the side in the direction of the initial plane hit, but falling perfectly flat, imploding on itself?

Explain world trade center building 7's collapse, when it had no fire.


WTC 7 was on fire for many hours. It also was leaning so it was inevitable that it would collapse. Also brief instances of free fall are not necessarily an indicator of controlled demolition.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


It really is just simple physics as FissionSurplus said.

I don't know how much easier it could get.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by huh2142
 


WTC 7 had asymmetrical damage, but it collapsed symmetrically. That is impossible.

Even if it was "leaning" as you put it. It would disperse the load from the undamaged side, onto the damaged side if it just started to "collapse". So how did everything just fall straight down?

Simple. The resistance that was there was removed.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 




Let's keep this one on the topic of the lightweight steel construction article in the OP. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
reply to post by samkent
 


It is simple physics. Matter cannot fall at free-fall speed unless there is nothing to stop it. If the world trade center was not intentionally demolished, those buildings wouldn't have fallen into their own footprints at free-fall speed. There would be too much material blocking this type of fall. I could see the top part of the building falling to the side in the direction of the initial plane hit, but falling perfectly flat, imploding on itself?

Explain world trade center building 7's collapse, when it had no fire.


Every single thing you said in that is either false, or does not apply to the collapses on 9/11. It is also off topic.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
those buildings wouldn't have fallen into their own footprints at free-fall speed.


they didnt fall at free fall speed (apart from WTC7 for a short time), nor did they fall into their own footprint....


Explain world trade center building 7's collapse, when it had no fire.


had no fire? Why make up stories?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Lightweight steel...eh. Apparently, non-conducive lightweight steel too since none of the monsterous heat created by the nuclear-like carpet and office furnishing fueled fires ever transferred away from the impact zones. This makes perfect sense because everyone knows that if you take a steel wrench and attach it to a steel pan then put it on your stove and turn it on high for an hour...the wrench will not heat up at all and you can grab it any time you like with no chance whatsoever of being burned. This is exactly the same line of reasoning NIST supports. Wait, I've got it! It was magic steel, made by the same manufacturer that created Oswald's bullets!



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


You post something from 2002, and you think it trumps all the discussions on physics we have had here at ATS?

When are any of you debunkers going to actually post something of your own, all you can do is post other peoples opinions.

There is nothing in that article that concludes the OS is correct.

I would love one of you to explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns? You can't do it. All you can do is claim that these people you put all your faith in are telling you the truth, or are not just as clueless as you are. Why do you always seem to think if it is printed somewhere by someone with a title it's proof of anything?

Well guess what?

9/11 Commissioners say "Official Story" a Lie

Do you still believe them now? Time to reconsider your position? Or will you continue to pick and choose who you believe based on their support of the OS?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by huh2142
 


So, the world trade center towers were the only ones in the history of skyscrapers to collapse during a fire, which didn't even consume the any of them in total.

Please see the following for other skyscrapers that suffered much longer fires and DID NOT collapse:

globalresearch.ca...



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
So, the world trade center towers were the only ones in the history of skyscrapers to collapse during a fire, which didn't even consume the any of them in total.


And how many of them were hit by a jet airliner?

Actually, it looks like when a skyscraper is hit by a jet airliner it will collapse.... 2 hits, 2 collapses, 100% hit rate!



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by godfather420
 



WTC 7 had asymmetrical damage, but it collapsed symmetrically. That is impossible.


Is this a symmetric collapse? WTC 7 slid to the north, crossed a 4 lane rd, Barclay St, and smashed 30 West
Broadway - damaging it severely.



Here is what happened to 30 West Broadway



Looking down Barclay St - 30 West Broadway at left



Does that look "symmetric" ?

How about Verizon building at 140 West ?





If collapse was so "symmetric" why are pieces of WTC 7 sticking in Verizon ?

Usual truther lies.....



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by huh2142
WTC 7 was on fire for many hours. It also was leaning so it was inevitable that it would collapse. Also brief instances of free fall are not necessarily an indicator of controlled demolition.


There are no words to describe the atrocity that is this post. Water falling from the sky isn't necessarily an indicator of rain either...sometimes it some douchebag pissing down your back.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie

Originally posted by huh2142
WTC 7 was on fire for many hours. It also was leaning so it was inevitable that it would collapse. Also brief instances of free fall are not necessarily an indicator of controlled demolition.


There are no words to describe the atrocity that is this post.


Try truthful, accurate, good description of what happened to WTC7....



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Read the article, OP, good relevant post.

The most alarming claim in the article is on the final page.


WARNING
We cannot accept the conclusion that this collapse was a unique occurence that would never be duplicated except for another such attack.


SOURCE

This is a point of view that is perhaps under-represented, especially in the conspiracy zone. One of the many difficulties in understanding construction systems and building codes is the power of vested interests and bureaucracies in defining both of them.

The author describes that developers interests are actively represented in the building codes development process.

I wonder if anyone here knows the NIST report well enough to know whether any such influence was exerted over the conclusions of the report. Now there's a real 9/11 conspiracy to investigate.
edit on 1/25/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: bold



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


WTC 7 was now leaning, eh. Got to say that's the first I've heard of that, but I'm not even going to argue with it. Please explain how that would make it collapse, inevitably. Seems to me that basic common sense, as well as physics and every single experience in every person's life ever has shown over and over again that stuff that leans doesn't collapse...IT FALLS OVER!!

For the inevitable collapse of leaning buildings see the picture below


edit on 1/25/2012 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join