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.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So in other words, the figures say that ......widespread areas within WTC 7 had been baking at 1000 degrees celcius for hours.
Originally posted by coyotepoet
Fine. Show me a comparable non-controlled building collapse that looks exactly like a controlled demolition and I will admit to being wrong. But you can't, now can you?
And the other two WTC buildings don't count. To my knowledge these have been the only 3 "non-controlled" collapses to look exactly like a controlled demolition. What a coincidence that it all happened in the same day and place. You don't know of any others do you?
Fine. Show me a comparable non-controlled building collapse that looks exactly like a controlled demolition and I will admit to being wrong. But you can't, now can you?
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by coyotepoet
Fine. Show me a comparable non-controlled building collapse that looks exactly like a controlled demolition and I will admit to being wrong. But you can't, now can you?
Delft University School of Technology - May 2008
One wing collapsed from fire
www.liveleak.com...
Originally posted by Six Sigma
The Windsor Tower fire clearly shows that steel fails and fails rapidly! 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began there were collapses. The steel failed. The concrete didn't.
Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by longjohnbritches
You see unless you control the mass so that it is equal you don't need F (frame) BUT most mass is unbalanced. Weighty on one side or the other. So without relief being a total distribution under a mass , the acceleration will not be EVEN (balanced) Therefore, there is not one of the three WTC buildings that could have fallen straight down. The relief damage was always off center. Hence the non damaged portion of the frame would remain stationary while IF a sufficient void is created to initiate MOMENTUM (plane building #1, plane building #2, corner damage on SEVEN) in another portion of the FRAME,
So what you are saying is that, in the video comparison directly above your post, there is no way physics would allow a non-controlled demolition to look exactly like a controlled demolition?edit on 15-4-2012 by coyotepoet because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Six Sigma
First of all you need to know that not a single CD expert thinks that the collapses of towers 1 & 2 looked like a controlled demolition. Even CD Expert Danny Jowenko who believed that WTC-7 looked like a CD, said that 1& 2 didn't.
Hi sig
Quite CORRECT!!! All we are working on here is why SEVEN went DOWN,
when Larry said PULL IT.
thanks for the enlightenment.
cheers ljb
Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Exactly. 2 hours and 30 minutes of burning like a freaking Roman Candle, encased from top to bottom in an inferno from hell, and more than 20 hours later, it was STILL STANDING AND SUPPORTING A CRANE ON THE ROOF!!! What utter nonsense you OS'ers spout. Compare that to small localized fires that were oxygen starved and nearly out, as per the radio communications of firemen ON THE SCENE, and that had been burning for less than 45 minutes. Not to mention that most of the jet fuel burned up within the first minute.
Desperately grasping at straws to support the untenable, as usual. EPIC FAIL.edit on 16-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Hi coyo,
I am not much on videos but what I said a few pages back might clear this up.
added by ljb
This formula changes drastically with BOMBS C4 and other explosives.
Because that is the only way I know that you can provide a total void beneath the mass of a tower in order to intimate acceleration. (velocity) So there is no need to equate that with FRAME momentum.
The videos are good examples of repetitive void creation.
Visuals (and audio) can help describe physics.cheers ljb
Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Hi sig
Quite CORRECT!!! All we are working on here is why SEVEN went DOWN,
when Larry said PULL IT.
thanks for the enlightenment.
cheers ljb
Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Originally posted by GenRadek
all that was left standing was the massive CONCRETE CORE which neither WTC1,2 or 7 had.
Not that you have any credibility left anyway, but I see a little bit more than a concrete core in this photo....
Keep up the good work!
Construction Type: Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire.
The Windsor Tower or Torre Windsor (officially known as Edificio Windsor) was a 32-storey concrete building with a reinforced concrete central core. A typical floor was two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns. Originally, the perimeter columns and internal steel beams were left unprotected in accordance with the Spanish building code at the time of construction
The building featured two heavily reinforced concrete transfer structures (technical floors) between the 2nd and 3rd Floors, and between the 16th and 17th Floors respectively. The original cladding system was fixed to the steel perimeter columns and the floor slabs. The perimeter columns were supported by the transfer structures at the 17th and 3rd Floor levels.
The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.
On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.
Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Originally posted by Six Sigma
The Windsor Tower fire clearly shows that steel fails and fails rapidly! 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began there were collapses. The steel failed. The concrete didn't.
Exactly. 2 hours and 30 minutes of burning like a freaking Roman Candle, encased from top to bottom in an inferno from hell, and more than 20 hours later, it was STILL STANDING AND SUPPORTING A CRANE ON THE ROOF!!! What utter nonsense you OS'ers spout. Compare that to small localized fires that were oxygen starved and nearly out, as per the radio communications of firemen ON THE SCENE, and that had been burning for less than 45 minutes. Not to mention that most of the jet fuel burned up within the first minute.
Desperately grasping at straws to support the untenable, as usual. EPIC FAIL.
Originally posted by GenRadek
Yes it does matter. ANOK and other truthers say that steel cannot be affected by fire fast enough to cause any sort of failure.
How can you even imagine those trusses pulling in those columns....
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
How can you even imagine those trusses pulling in those columns....
Because those trusses were designed to act as a unit with almost an acre of concrete floor. See those little knuckles sticking up above the deck pans? They were then incorporated into the floor making the floor and the trusses one unit.
That doesn't explain how sagging trusses can pull in columns!
Yes the floors were one complete assembly, including the steel deck pans and concrete, did that all sag also?
Do I have to explain the physics of expanding materials again?
Sagging trusses cannot put a pulling force on the columns, period.
Once again, you ignored my question. Why is that? Is that such a hard thing to ask? I am not asking about how a building collapse should look like. am asking, if as ANOK and other truthers adamantly claim that steel cannot heat up rapidly enough to fail in a "regular" fire, then why did the heavy steel trussed roof collapse from fire alone within 30 minutes? Simple question. Quit dodging it and quit trying to change the subject.