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.

 

WTC Lightweight Steel Construction

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie
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)


Its only been mentioned, oh hundreds of times here on ATS, including by many firefighters whose accounts we have posted here MANY times. Wasnt leaning? Ask firefighter Miller:





edit on 1/26/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 




here is the original video which is uncut.

He knew it was out of whack. No mention of bombs going off inside.

Who else said it was starting to lean?

Severe Damage Accounts and Leaning of WTC7


Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway, in a letter to me.


How about Chief Hayden?


There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.


Chief Hayden at WTC7


To the person that believes that there were no fires in WTC7:

Eyewitness accounts of massive fires in WTC7



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That article is rather funny in that it never explains what "lightweight steel" is. In fact there is no mention of lightweight steel in the entire article.


As used in the article (if only in the title), 'lightweight steel construction' refers to the use of long, light trusses in floor construction, as opposed to the former practice of using relatively short, heavy, steel beams, as for example in the empire state building. To reiterate, 'lightweight steel' does not refer to a material, but to the way it is used.


OOPS!

The core and all of its horizontal beams get disappeared again.



The propaganda war is based on distorted information. We can't have information as simple as the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level. People might try to apply the conservation of momentum.

psik




Again, Good heavens, read the NIST report. Are you this dense? Apparently you just believe that the core is the be all end all, and completely ignore the other 70% of the building? It appears you have zero knowledge of the construction of the WTC Towers, and how it was designed. The core was just one small part of the tower. The core was what the floors were attached to. The rest of the building had floors which were supported by light steel trusses. NOT heavy steel I-beams. No one is ignoring the core's design, only you are making a big deal about it.

Also you have been told, over and over and over, about how each floor was designed. It is all in the NIST report.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Hey Lt. Dan, I said I wouldn't argue whether or not it was leaning and sorry I don't have all day every day to troll this forum but I have read hundreds of threads and that was the first I had heard of it leaning. However, that really begs more questions than it answers, for instance: why then if it was already leaning did it not fall over...or why was it leaning in the first place? Care to explain?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Originally posted by psikeyhackr

But you complain every time I post a video of a collapse model
psik


That's right, because the video is off topic. You're attempting, repeatedly to derail the thread and turn it into a "psikey-cinema" thread.



This is the second time you've posted it in two pages of this thread. There ought to be a law.
edit on 1/26/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: link to post



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 





why then if it was already leaning did it not fall over.


Because it was not made with a rigid steel frame. It too used floor trusses to allow large open floors without ugly support structures in the middle of rooms.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by huh2142

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.


LOL, you believe WTC 7 came down just by fire?

This isn't the forum for you sir...



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Gibonz
 


Telling someone to go elsewhere because they have a different opinion? This isn't the forum for you, sir.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek


Again, Good heavens, read the NIST report. Are you this dense? Apparently you just believe that the core is the be all end all, and completely ignore the other 70% of the building? It appears you have zero knowledge of the construction of the WTC Towers, and how it was designed. The core was just one small part of the tower. The core was what the floors were attached to. The rest of the building had floors which were supported by light steel trusses. NOT heavy steel I-beams. No one is ignoring the core's design, only you are making a big deal about it.

Also you have been told, over and over and over, about how each floor was designed. It is all in the NIST report.


The NIST report says that the core held up 53% of the buildings' weight and then they do not tell us the weights and quantities of each grade of the 2800 perimeter wall panels, alias wheat chex, that were on each of the towers. So they do not tell us how the strength, and therefore weight, of the core and perimeter had to increase down the buildings in order to support all of those floors.

So they have allowed this nonsense to drag on and the physics profession hasn't come in to resolve it.

It must be so difficult for them to figure out that skyscrapers must be bottom heavy.

psik



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
NIST did consider the core columns tapered, here is the info they used for their computer models...

NIST Core Column Data



What they don't explain is how the towers could collapse into an increasing mass and path of most resistance.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



What they don't explain is how the towers could collapse into an increasing mass and path of most resistance.

Tell you what - you seem to know it all and prove it all - prove that those column sections offered enough resistance to impeded the collapse to the point where we should not have observed what we all did observe on 9/11/2001. I'll be looking forward to seeing your calculations - not repitition of your incredulity.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The NIST report says.....

How would you know? You've admitted on numerous occasions that you've never read the report!



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
As used in the article (if only in the title), 'lightweight steel construction' refers to the use of long, light trusses in floor construction, as opposed to the former practice of using relatively short, heavy, steel beams, as for example in the empire state building. To reiterate, 'lightweight steel' does not refer to a material, but to the way it is used.


Hmm you seem confused by the term 'light weight'. It does not mean trusses are not as strong as beams. They are stronger because of their triangular design, which allows them to be lighter without loss of strength. That is one of the reasons they are used instead of beams, another is better stability.

You just prove you have no clue about construction, and just assume from the term 'light weight' that it means they are not as strong. You completely fail to understand the physics of trusses. Trusses are stronger than beams whether they are steel or wood trusses. Steel trusses are lighter than wood trusses even, but they are stronger because steel has a higher weight to strength ratio.

One of the first things you learn in engineering is how different shapes, designs, work.

www.teachengineering.org...://www.teachengineering.org/collection/cub_/activities/cub_intro/cub_intro_lesson01_activity 1.xml

Shapes That Make Structures Strong

It's obvious the OS supporters here don't have the educational background to make the claims they do.


OOPS!


Yes indeed as usual.


Also you have been told, over and over and over, about how each floor was designed. It is all in the NIST report.


We know how the floors were designed. You obvioulsy don't understand that design. Also the core was the main load bearing structure, it could have stood all by itself, there is no reason failing floors would cause it to fail.


edit on 1/26/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Hmm you seem confused by the term 'light weight'.

And you seem to be confused by the written word. Light weight means whatever the author intended it to mean in the context it was presented. Words and word phrases can and do have more than one meaning.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Tell you what - you seem to know it all and prove it all


Well I obvioulsy know more than you do. Typical attitude of a kid losing an argument.


prove that those column sections offered enough resistance to impeded the collapse to the point where we should not have observed what we all did observe on 9/11/2001. I'll be looking forward to seeing your calculations - not repitition of your incredulity.


It's not up to me to prove anything. Calculations are not needed, how many times are you going to use this tactic when your arguments fail?

Proof is equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws. This has been explained to you a million times, but you just want to act ignorant and pretend the laws of motion don't count and demand calculations you know can't be done.

You have to prove first of all that sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns. Where are your 'calculations' for that? Unless the phenomena can be demonstrated, the NIST report remains the hypothesis it is. Not fact, not theory, just a questionable hypothesis.

I mean you think PSF mean weight, so I have little faith in you understanding anything to do with engineering.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
And you seem to be confused by the written word. Light weight means whatever the author intended it to mean in the context it was presented. Words and word phrases can and do have more than one meaning.


GenRadek has always tried to use the 'lightweight' term to mean the trusses were not as strong as steel beams.

Why else would he keep emphasizing 'lightweight'?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
As used in the article (if only in the title), 'lightweight steel construction' refers to the use of long, light trusses in floor construction, as opposed to the former practice of using relatively short, heavy, steel beams, as for example in the empire state building. To reiterate, 'lightweight steel' does not refer to a material, but to the way it is used.


Hmm you seem confused by the term 'light weight'. It does not mean trusses are not as strong as beams...

You just prove you have no clue about construction, and just assume from the term 'light weight' that it means they are not as strong...


Thanks for the lecture, but,

Neither myself, nor GenRadek (to whom you mistakenly attributed my words) has stated in this thread that trusses are "weak". Nor is it even implied, upon a careful reading.

Please hold back the insults until you give posts a thorough read-through. You yourself have demonstrated an appalling ignorance of physics on more than one occaision, so I would hope you might be more forgiving.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by Gibonz
 


Telling someone to go elsewhere because they have a different opinion? This isn't the forum for you, sir.


Show me where i told him to leave....

Anyone who thinks WTC 7 came down due to fire doesn't deserve to be on this site



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Gibonz
 


This is a forum for discussing conspiracy theories, not worshiping them. There is no ATS creed.

When you tell someone that...

post by Gibonz

Originally posted by Gibonz...This isn't the forum for you sir...


Or
reply to post by Gibonz

Originally posted by Gibonz...Anyone who thinks WTC 7 came down due to fire doesn't deserve to be on this site


You're implying that they shouldn't be posting here. Which is both off topic, and inappropriate.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
You yourself have demonstrated an appalling ignorance of physics on more than one occaision, so I would hope you might be more forgiving.


Prove it.

I'm tired of your empty claims, prove where I am ignorant about physics.

Not once have I heard you explain equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation, when you claim the towers collapses were caused by fire.

Not once have you explained how sagging trusses can pull in columns.

Most of the time you don't even address what I say, you just claim I am wrong like you just did here.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join