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.

 

Your 9/11 truth?

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by windsorblue
 


'It’s the columns I wish to focus on. Imagine you are holding a crowbar and you then hit the crowbar of a solid object you feel a massive vibration from the impact (or oscillate if you will) up your arm (a crude example, sorry).
Now the force of the impact and explosion would have sent a huge vibration wave through the metal columns throughout the building, the problem that this would cause would be to the concrete surrounding the steel, it is inelastic in nature. The massive vibration would have caused the steel columns to destroy the bonding capacity of the concrete and between the metal and hardened concrete, the concrete will break'.


An interesting theory, and it actually might have played a part in the collapse. My understanging though is that the main use for concrete in the building was for the floors, not the columns, and even then they were poured into giant metal trays. The idea was to make the building light and springy as possible because it was just so monstrously huge and they wanted the building to be able to flex in the wind. Any concrete ion the core columbs would eventually break from the flexing.

I do applaud your reasoning, regardless. Regardless of what actually did cause the towers to come down, there are clearly any number of reasons that are plausible, from the plane impact doing more damage than we thought to a fatal flaw in the design of the towers that noone fully understood was there to even your "impact shock wave damaged the concrete". It's quite revealing how the conspiracy theorists conspicuously run away from these the same way Pac Man runs away from those ghosts, and gravitate instinctively toward these paranoid "sinister secret plot to take over the world" theories.




posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Believe it or not I’m going to have another crack at this…

The WTC architect Yamasaki and engineers led by John Skilling and Les Robertson employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extended across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colour aluminium alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all. The building's core housed the elevator and utility shafts, restrooms, three stairwells, and other support spaces. The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m), and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower. The columns tapered after the 66th floor, and consisted of welded box-sections at lower floors and rolled wide-flange sections at upper floors.

The perimeter structure was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces, which consisted of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates. The perimeter columns had a square cross section, 14 inches (36 cm) on a side, and were constructed of welded steel plate. The thickness of the plates and grade of structural steel varied over the height of the tower, ranging from 36,000 to 100,000 pounds per square inch[49] (260 to 670 MPa). The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors.

The large, column-free space between the perimeter and core was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses. The floors supported their own weight, as well as live loads, provided lateral stability to the exterior walls, and distributed wind loads among the exterior walls. The floors consisted of 4-inch (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck with shear connections for composite action.] A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses had a span of 60 feet (18 m) in the long-span areas and 35 feet (11 m) in the short span area. The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns, and were on 6-foot-8-inch (2.03 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to the core columns on the interior side.

So, this is my point, the whole building was one giant metal lattice with steel columns from the bedrock all the way to the top of the tower, connected via trusses bolted to the exterior columns. What would happen if the impact caused enough vibration through the lattice metal structure ,via the perimeter structure and the 47 steel columns, could that have caused the bolts on the trusses and spandrels to shear and cause the building to collapse under its own weight from the impact point down through the now unsupported floors? or have an any effect on the concrete as I mentioned in my previous post?




posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Believe it or not I’m going to have another crack at this…

The columns tapered after the 66th floor, and consisted of welded box-sections at lower floors and rolled wide-flange sections at upper floors.


The core columns didn't taper below the 66th floor?

Lon Waters has a website showing the cross section of the core columns.

psik



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Thanks for the welcome and a big hello back. I am sure Psikey's will reply once he (or she) is on line. I have attempted to answer his question and I’m sure he (or she) will do the gentlemanly (or Lady) thing and be courteous enough to answer mine and tell me were my theory doesn’t hold water.


Well I do wish you luck on that, because I for one asked the guy numerous times what the heck his position actually is and I still don't know. Psikey actually has a number of Youtube videos. Here's one of them that he showed me:

Simulation of how much a building sways when hit by an object

If you can understand the point he's trying to get at, you're a better person than I am.


Obviously it is not difficult to be a better person than you are.

How many times do the questions appear regarding the distributions of steel and concrete? There are time lapse portions showing how the behavior of the structure changes with mass and its distribution. So why don't we have that data on the WTC towers?

psik



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Well hello there, are you going to answer my question now? I have had 2 attempts to reply to the question you posed, I even sat through you’re ‘cardboard tower pulling with a bit of wire and then throwing something at it’, demonstration. So what do you say? Return the favour ,I would appreciate it if you give it a go
edit on 7-3-2012 by windsorblue because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2012 by windsorblue because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
 

How many times do the questions appear regarding the distributions of steel and concrete? There are time lapse portions showing how the behavior of the structure changes with mass and its distribution. So why don't we have that data on the WTC towers?

psik


I already told you why- you are the one and only person on either side of the debate who thinks "distribution of concrete" is relevent to anything about anything. Not to Lee Hamilton, not to Richard Gage, not to anybody except you. Even the people commenting on your videos are wondering what the point you're trying to make actually is.

Now how about answering Windsor's question, already. How many times does THAT question need too appear?



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by grill
 


Welcome, grill! Excellent observation, but be prepared to withstand an assault on your credibility. In fact, Dave has already pointed out how many 'chunks' they hauled away! They are on their way out.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by windsorblue

So, this is my point, the whole building was one giant metal lattice with steel columns from the bedrock all the way to the top of the tower, connected via trusses bolted to the exterior columns. What would happen if the impact caused enough vibration through the lattice metal structure ,via the perimeter structure and the 47 steel columns, could that have caused the bolts on the trusses and spandrels to shear and cause the building to collapse under its own weight from the impact point down through the now unsupported floors? or have an any effect on the concrete as I mentioned in my previous post?



So it sounds like you're essentially of the "the plane caused more damage than NIST believes" camp. This is what the Purdue people think as well, which is what I subscribe to myself (their theory is that the incompressible fluids of the plan like fuel acted like a wrecking ball against the internal structure). The only comment I can make is after the impact, some eighty somethingth percent of the people below the impact areas survived the collapse because they were able to get out in time. One would think that if the impact caused more damage to the lower structure we would have more eyewitness reports of weird things going on further down- floors suddenly tilting, blockage in the emergency stairwalls, or what have you.

At any rate, as you noted yourself, each floor was supported only by itself and no floor contributed to the structural integrity of any other floor. It seems to me the mechanism that allowed the floors to fall like dominoes given the right conditions was already inherent in the design, regardless of whether the bolts on the trusses were compromised or not.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Yes I am in the camp that believes the planes caused more damage to the towers than we were led to believe, and i'm glad to see i'm not the only one that thinks that. It makes more sense than Dr. Evils super duper space cannon or thermite charges being the culprits.

A thought has just come to mind, what if people did notice something strange that day but attributed it to something else? there were reports of loud bangs, thought to be bombs going off after the planes impact, instead could these noises have been the sound of the weakend bolts being pulled violently away from the supports. the sound would have been sigificantly increased due to the echo effect in the large canvernous area of the ground floor
edit on 7-3-2012 by windsorblue because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
 

How many times do the questions appear regarding the distributions of steel and concrete? There are time lapse portions showing how the behavior of the structure changes with mass and its distribution. So why don't we have that data on the WTC towers?

psik


I already told you why- you are the one and only person on either side of the debate who thinks "distribution of concrete" is relevent to anything about anything. Not to Lee Hamilton, not to Richard Gage, not to anybody except you. Even the people commenting on your videos are wondering what the point you're trying to make actually is.

Now how about answering Windsor's question, already. How many times does THAT question need too appear?


Then why does the NIST report say in THREE PLACES that the distribution of weight of the tower needs to be known to analyze the impact and then they don't do it?


The motion of the tower was also influenced by both its mass and the distribution of that mass; however, neither the actual mass nor its distribution is known. Based on information in the original WTC design documents provided to NIST by Leslie E. Robertson Associates (LERA) and the Port Authority of new York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), and baseline computer models of the WTC towers (NIST NCSTAR 1-2), the average load per unit area (including live and dead loads) of a typical floor was approximately 87 lb/ft2 (4.17 kN/m2). Based on a typical floor area of 42,200 ft2 (3,900 m2), each floor in the tower would have had a weight of approximately 3,675 kip (16,400 kN), which corresponds to a mass of 114 × 103 slugs (1.67 × 106 kg).

NIST NCSTAR 1-5D page 43
Reaction of Ceiling Tile Systems to Shocks

This is such obvious grade school physics it is amazing how little it is pointed out. I can only conclude that a lot of people don't comprehend grades school physics.

psik



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



This is such obvious grade school physics it is amazing how little it is pointed out. I can only conclude that a lot of people don't comprehend grades school physics.

Really? Grade school physics? Then explain it all in terms that a third grader would understand. And you can only use 25 words or less.

If this really is "grade school physics" then this should not be a big problem.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You have not answered any of the questions I have already asked you so I wont be shocked if you dont respond to this one:

What qualifications ,if any, do you have in physics? you mention the subject a lot but I havent seen any evidence in your postings.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by windsorblue
 


A thought has just come to mind, what if people did notice something strange that day but attributed it to something else? there were reports of loud bangs, thought to be bombs going off after the planes impact, instead could these noises have been the sound of the weakend bolts being pulled violently away from the supports. the sound would have been sigificantly increased due to the echo effect in the large canvernous area of the ground floor




Thank you! That is literally the first jaw dropping moment I've had here when it occured to me what you were saying. It very well WOULD explain the "explosions", which would sound like a loud BANG to peoole outside the building...and it wouldn't even need to have occurred on the lower floors. The weakened bolts popping could...and probably would...happen at or near the impact area, as the supports became weaker and weaker and the stress on the remaining bolts became heavier and heavier. We'll probably never know the exact progression of the collapse, but your scenario has the strength of being based upon what we definitely know was happening in the building, rather than being smuggled in by armies of sinister secret agents.

I gave you a star for your efforts.
edit on 7-3-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You have not answered any of the questions I have already asked you so I wont be shocked if you dont respond to this one:

What qualifications ,if any, do you have in physics? you mention the subject a lot but I havent seen any evidence in your postings.


My objective is to EXPLAIN the physics not to get you to BELIEVE what I say about physics.

If you do not understand what I say and do not ask specific questions about the physics then that is your problem. I provided a Python program that uses the conservation of momentum. You can look up the conservation of momentum equation for yourself. The program has been around for two years and no one has accused me of getting it wrong.

I keep telling people this is GRADE SCHOOL PHYSICS. It is not my fault that you need people with PhDs to tell you what to think. This is not Quantum Physics. This is not Einsteinian Physics. This is 300 year old Newtonian Physics. Are you saying that is beyond your comprehension? The Empire State Building was completed before the neutron was discovered. My computer program could not have been run in 1931 because there were no electronic computers.

It is not my fault if stoopid people need EXPERTS to tell them what to think.


psik



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



This is such obvious grade school physics it is amazing how little it is pointed out. I can only conclude that a lot of people don't comprehend grades school physics.

Really? Grade school physics? Then explain it all in terms that a third grader would understand. And you can only use 25 words or less.

If this really is "grade school physics" then this should not be a big problem.


Are you saying that you did not make it to 7th and 8th grade which are also part of grade school?

Of course 3rd graders should have no trouble building this. Have you tried it and tested it yourself?



There are no words in that video. 3rd graders could just watch and THINK.

Maybe 3rd graders could figure it out if they built it.

Maybe you have a problem with the THINK part.

There is mass being accelerated by gravity imparting kinetic energy which is absorbed by crushing loops which are strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD.

psik



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Well hello there, are you going to answer my question now? I have had 2 attempts to reply to the question you posed, I even sat through you’re ‘cardboard tower pulling with a bit of wire and then throwing something at it’, demonstration. So what do you say? Return the favour ,I would appreciate it if you give it a go.


So you don't know the difference between cardboard and paper?

psik



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
My 9-11 truth. I am a NYer, but a country boy. That day I had decided not to go to school, as I had already done a weeks worth of schoolwork the day before. I woke up, went downstairs and turned on the idiotbox. Glanced at it, figured it was another cheesy doomsday flick on, went and made a cup of coffee. Came back, still showing the burning towers realized it was not a movie. Glued to the idiotbox until the second tower fell. Felt numb, went up to my room to take a toke.

Few years later I found out 2 guys I did some construction work for died in one of the towers. That is all I know for sure about 9-11 myself.
edit on Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:15:49 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 
Watching your experiment I noticed the metal loops were supported from underneath, by paper I think, which would contributed to overall support of the column, the floors in the WTC, as I have mentioned before:

‘Consisted of 4-inch (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck with shear connections for composite action.] A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses had a span of 60 feet (18 m) in the long-span areas and 35 feet (11 m) in the short span area. The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns, and were on 6-foot-8-inch (2.03 m) centres’. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to the core columns on the interior side.’

If the trusses and spandrels were damaged and weakened to the point they broke then the floors would now no longer be supported, and they were not supported by the floor underneath, then with the application of physics, F=MA (The gravitational force = mass x acceleration of the mass due to gravity) the whole thing would collapse like a house of cards.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


And those third graders would all say "why did he put the big broom handle in the middle"? "What does that prove"?


And those third graders would walk away knowing, more or less, how many washers it takes to bend a paper loop.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
I posted this on another site, wanted to share here....

Regarding Shanksville....

A plane that crashes into the ground does not scatter 2.5 miles let alone 6-8 miles. A plane shot out of the sky, does. Example, where was the debris of WTC planes scattered 2.5 miles? Where was the Pentagon plane debris scattered 2.5 miles? Exactly


Remember, supposedly the shanksville plane submerged whole into the ground leaving a cartoon-cutout image in the earth lol.



If you want proof of an inside-job, there's irrefutable evidence right there on several counts...

1) Debris found scattered 2.5, or 6-8 miles, either way is impossible from a crashed plane. Do people even realize how far a 2.5 mile radius is? It is seriously stupidity to believe this. The only thing that can scatter debris so far is after a destruction of a plane thousands of feet in the air.

2) That picture posted above is the O/S saying: "the plane hit the ground as one piece and entered the earth as one piece, sunk into the earth at least the entire length of a Boeing, and then 99% of the plane in debris bounced off the earth and traveled over 2.5 miles!" Apparently missing homes, trees, buildings, etc, as it zipped thru the air like Superman traveling 2.5 miles. Bits of aluminum, baggage, clothes, etc, all bounced off the earth after making a clear indentation in the ground (sinking at least the entire length of a Boeing from tip to tail, which is impossible) before bouncing off the earth.

3) All eyewitnesses, TV crews at the scene of Shanksville soon after impact, said there were no traces of a plane anywhere. So the O/S is further saying that about 99% of the plane after sinking into the earth the entire length of a Boeing, all bounced and traveled 2.5 miles, but only 1% of the plane in debris remained in the site: namely the passport, and again some small bits of plane that was planted just like small bits were planted at the Pentagon, and other passports planted at the Pentagon and WTC.

4) So, everything bounced and traveled 2.5 miles, but thankfully the passport of the pilot hijacker was found right there on the surface of the crater of the crash site! And in readable condition!

5) And as has been posted before -- the picture of the guy in the passport is not even the same person's picture named as the terrorist.

Shanksville is the most stupid aspect of the O/S, it is genuinely moronic to gobble it up. People forced to think they don't have any of their own common sense, logic and understanding of things, so they 'have to' accept the most insane and stupid story/lie ever told simply because they want to side with the 'status quo'.

Here's a 2.5 mile radius of Melbourne, Australia, just so people who have traded in their brains, can gauge the enormity of the stupidity...



It's amazing when people seriously try to 'explain' how crashed planes do bounce of the earth/buildings/etc and travel over 2.5 miles in a radius. They do so because they have made a pact to themselves that they are O/S'ers, believing the O/S implicitly, and implicitly because any acknowledgment of a lie about any aspect of the O/S they know immediately means an inside-job.

Therefore, tho they know in themselves with their own logic/common-sense/understanding that all the points mentioned in above are right, they will reject their own logic/etc just to maintain their public O/S stance totally and implicitly! That's huge, highlighting how absurd they've become/are that they 'must' maintain total implicit belief in the O/S no matter how ludicrously insane and downright brainless that part of the Shanksville story is.

The earth is more solid than the Pentagon and WTC, a plane would've crumbled completely in large pieces right where the crash site was. But that official picture of Shanksville is the O/S saying the plane was in one piece and submerged the entire length of a Boeing into the Earth (impossible), and then 99% of it (aluminum, clothes, seats, engines, etc) bounced up and flew over 2.5 miles in a radius, but left a passport there thankfully.

Conclusion:
Either you insist the plane submerged entirely into the earth and disappeared tho still leaving a passport there and that there was no debris found 2.5 kms away (which you cannot say because you know so much debris was found in at least a 2.5 mile radius)......or.......you admit that there was a debris field at least 4 kms in radius thus the plane was shot down thus the drawn in image of the plane is a lie and the passport and tiny bits of plane were planted thus = inside-job.

People are only making fools of themselves by even trying to defend the govt's O/S about Shanksville. As in, knowingly in themselves knowing they are fooling themselves as they fool themselves. I mean really have a hard look at what you're force-feeding yourselves to believe despite your own understanding/logic screaming at you deep down inside that it's BS.
edit on 3/8/2012 by GGEden because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join