Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Steel Down Of 9/11

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by stew4media
 


Almost every high rise building has used the same design as the WTC since the 1960's.

It was not the first, it was not unusual, and it is still the most used design today.


The first building to apply the tube-frame construction was the DeWitt-Chestnut apartment building which Khan designed and which was completed in Chicago by 1963.[5] This laid the foundations for the tube structural design of many later skyscrapers, including his own John Hancock Center and Willis Tower, and the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.


Evolution of Concrete Skyscrapers: from Ingalls to Jin mao




posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I have to look up resources. I do recall it saying it was "One" of the first and unique in it's own way of being built. It's no longer the most advance way of building (It's nearly 50 year old from first drafts). Is it possible because the building was actually first drafted in 1958 or 59 (if I got that date right or close enough) that other smaller buildings were built first.. making your claim correct but the Japanese American designer came up with this style of building originally for the first WTC and they went through several designs before they finally chose the 2 towers? No other tower has ever failed. WTC 7 is built the same way? Was the one in Europe built the same way that didn't collapse? I can't believe Obama didn't take office, and say "Reopen the case on this". Way too many people from every walk of life are pissed off about this.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by stew4media
reply to post by ANOK
 


I have to look up resources. I do recall it saying it was "One" of the first and unique in it's own way of being built.


That was all just part of the OS lies. They tried to claim the buildings were so unique and it was their design that allowed the collapses. I don't think that argument is used too much anymore.


It's no longer the most advance way of building (It's nearly 50 year old from first drafts).


There really hasn't been a lot of changes since the 60's. We've been building structures for thousands of years, they had it pretty much down by the 60's.


Is it possible because the building was actually first drafted in 1958 or 59 (if I got that date right or close enough) that other smaller buildings were built first.. making your claim correct but the Japanese American designer came up with this style of building originally for the first WTC and they went through several designs before they finally chose the 2 towers? No other tower has ever failed. WTC 7 is built the same way? Was the one in Europe built the same way that didn't collapse? I can't believe Obama didn't take office, and say "Reopen the case on this". Way too many people from every walk of life are pissed off about this.


WTC 7 was not the same design, it had columns and beams, not floors trusses.

The design of the towers did not contribute to it's collapse, my opinion of course.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   
When ever talking about the columns...it is never really mentioned as to the differences in weight of columns between the lower and upper floors...i will describe this for a convention to follow when i speak of the thicknesses of columns and beams..

The lower section will be below the 40th floor

the middle section will be between the 40th floor and 76th floors

the upper section will be above the 76th floor....

I use this as the thicknesses change around the mechanical floors on the towers.....even though it is more subtle than that this is a good reference for further discussions on the steel.

as we will see in the image below....the column on top of the bottom column is from the upper section...where the bottom column is from the middle section.

now this photo shows a column from the south tower....It is labeled as column 606....South....there are quite a few instances of this occurrence throughout videos photos and images in the debris field and from NIST and FEMA ....






Now as we see we will be able to locate positions in the structures from the plans and as in the first one

Column 606 in the south tower...middle section can see that by thickness...so we can start to place things....also we can tell some from impact area due to deformation and fire damage.




as we see with this one...fire damaged...also the thickness shows it is from the upper section...as with these.


this one below is interesting and quite telling of a story...I will locate on plans when i can...but see the fire damages spans approx one floor...It suffered impact..but did not sever....It is from upper section...and is a column from impact area.

this next one is from impact area....we might even be able to place this one exactly from video evidence...because of the deformation....i believe this is how the investigation should have been done to see how the different elements were affected by impact and collapse....Why was this not done...there is so much photographic and video evidence...and i have not even had access to the steel...in my honest opinion...FEMA...And NIST failed utterly and completely...if i and others can start to piece things together why did they not.


I am just showing process right now...this is a live working thread...if others notice things please feel free to come in...also if you want access to images i believe you can just go into my images and access them.






edit on 043131p://f39Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)
edit on 053131p://f03Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)
edit on 053131p://f18Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Now all this is within 3months of the 911 impacts...to me this is mass organization of destruction of evidence...They are cutting the columns and beams into little sections for disposal...I know they would have to get rid of it all eventually...but to do it in such a organized fashion within only three months is completely CRIMINAL.


Does money speak so loudly that people do not question what they are asked to do...or is it because it is so fresh they are not thinking straight.





As we can see it was systematic and quick for the disposal of the evidence....good thing we have video evidence available to us to go through everything....I will start to show plans and locations of steel soon...it is a lot of work to go through....but worth the effort.

So far we have a lighter weight upper structure...able to apparently drop and crush the lower stronger structure and this is perfectly acceptable the the experts at NIST and FEMA....Do people realize why these government agencies are used...It is to control the flow of information under the guise of our safety....So it is better to let thousands and thousands DIE...talking about the wars here...by lying to the people for OUR safety.....And people still believe the OS.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
Now all this is within 3months of the 911 impacts...to me this is mass organization of destruction of evidence...They are cutting the columns and beams into little sections for disposal...I know they would have to get rid of it all eventually...but to do it in such a organized fashion within only three months is completely CRIMINAL.


Does money speak so loudly that people do not question what they are asked to do...or is it because it is so fresh they are not thinking straight.





As we can see it was systematic and quick for the disposal of the evidence....good thing we have video evidence available to us to go through everything....I will start to show plans and locations of steel soon...it is a lot of work to go through....but worth the effort.

So far we have a lighter weight upper structure...able to apparently drop and crush the lower stronger structure and this is perfectly acceptable the the experts at NIST and FEMA....Do people realize why these government agencies are used...It is to control the flow of information under the guise of our safety....So it is better to let thousands and thousands DIE...talking about the wars here...by lying to the people for OUR safety.....And people still believe the OS.


I don't like the 'the top section crushed the lower section' wording, as the two sections were not solid rigid blocks, but two sections made up of many connections which were sheared when the collapse started, hence why the structure could not hold together...



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by AvadaKedavra14
 


You don't like it...well you do realize why it gets said as such don't you...If your reading what i am saying...i am totally against the term...the reason truthers say this is because this is what people are falsly led to believe is what happened.

you do Know about Bazants paper...don't you.



this is the whole basis that has been tried to be passed off on people...the crush down/crush up of Bazants bogus paper.

Also the other aspect of what gets portrayed by the Os...the proverbial Pancake theory...which was yet dismissed by FEMA and NIST....yet still for some reason gets cited by OSer's....so go figure.

NOW as for the prospect of the elements just separating....that is just false in and of itself....The perimeter walls were made such that they would take ALL wind load....and the Hat Truss is the element that transfers laod between the core and perimeter walls....Why would you believe that a gravity driven collapse would just separate these elements....Someone said they were not designed to drop 1000' why would anyone believe they just dropped 1000' without encountering resistance from the lower part of the towers....this is not the case unless all Resistance was removed from below the hat truss assemblies.

It you look through what has been shown here so far it should show that things are not as the Official story tries to portray...So in your honest opinion am i hearing that you say these elements just blew apart....lets look at the core assemblies and you explain how these just blew apart into individual elements ...



this is start of collapse initiation of North tower....then we look at .25sec later....and you tell me what is destroying the hat truss assemblies in that short of time.



what do you see there...I would like you to explain...and see if we can come to some kind of conclusion how gravity has done this....

now lets look at the core shall we....



I see i-beams and cross bracing....lets look higher up shall we...



this is 108th floor...where the hat truss is welded...bolted and cross braced onto...so in your opinion these should just fail within less than a second.



I do not think so in my opinion....these were not weak poorly built structures....they had been standing for over forty years.....they have undergone fire in 1976....then a truck bomb in 1993...they have survived extremely strong winds and varying temperature conditions from high summer heat to harsh winter cold.

also if your interested it does help to understand their construction so...here is a documentary from 1983....loaded with good info....these are not feeble weak structures that the OS would have us believe to suit their lies.




Hope all this is useful information.
edit on 083131p://f42Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by AvadaKedavra14
 


You don't like it...well you do realize why it gets said as such don't you...If your reading what i am saying...i am totally against the term...the reason truthers say this is because this is what people are falsly led to believe is what happened.

you do Know about Bazants paper...don't you.


Hope all this is useful information.
edit on 083131p://f42Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)


Yes of course I am aware, the only things I use from Bazants paper is some of his calcs which are generally accepted as accurate.

The hat truss, was connected to the rest of the building of course, I never said it would be tore apart after any particular time frame, but as the structure starts to deform the hat truss will be torn apart and also the collision at the end of the collapse will not help matters. I think its unrealistic to think the hat truss should survive intact.

Yes I do think gravity did that, what do you think? Again going back to the simple fact that the lower structures top floors and their connections were not designed to withstand such a dynamic load as the top section falling on them.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by AvadaKedavra14
 


that is the whole issue is it not...why is it just the floors that people state the dynamic load could not be withstood....It is the whole structure as a whole that would take this apparent Dynamic load...So i have shown why the crush gets used....You do not accept Bazants paper...yet that is the one espoused by the OS you have not stated why you think the core should get blown apart...I did not say the hat truss should stay completely intact...but it should at least be a mangled mess of material on top of the debris pile....as there was nothing to crush it into bits...especially in the north tower collapse....You also have not addressed where the hat truss which had no dynamic load on it....basically blow apart within .25 sec of collapse initiation....the images do not lie also If things are being expelled out to the sides...(which they are)...then where is all this mass which would continue the collapse.

all the way up as the towers were constructed the core always rose three stories above floor levels...so does this say it is not able to support itself when 16 floor of the north tower collapsed....nope.

I love how i have been showing actual steel and how it concerns the collapse yet the regulars are not in here arguing the toss....what is being shown is that the OS has lied....It has misled the public...and you yourself have just stated you do not believe the very paper that the OS seems to hold so dear...so therefore you yourself have just said you have been lied to by the OS concerning this matter.

Also if you understood the images of the collapse i have done...you would see that at least 8 floors of the upper block should have penetrated into the lower block by that amount give or take a floor or two...yet that is not what is observed now is it....what is observed is that the upper block is in fact compressing magically into itself before it even affects the lower block....see the markings and the red slider that represents the entire upper block....Please explain this result if you wouldn't mind.
edit on 093131p://f22Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 





that is the whole issue is it not...why is it just the floors that people state the dynamic load could not be withstood....It is the whole structure as a whole that would take this apparent Dynamic load...So i have shown why the crush gets used....You do not accept Bazants paper...yet that is the one espoused by the OS you have not stated why you think the core should get blown apart...I did not say the hat truss should stay completely intact...but it should at least be a mangled mess of material on top of the debris pile....as there was nothing to crush it into bits...especially in the north tower collapse....You also have not addressed where the hat truss which had no dynamic load on it....basically blow apart within .25 sec of collapse initiation....the images do not lie also If things are being expelled out to the sides...(which they are)...then where is all this mass which would continue the collapse.


I have not actually said whether I accept his paper or not, I have simply said I agree with the calcs about potential energy do you?

I disagree, it is about the top floor of the bottom section just as much as the whole structure, if this floor fails then why would the below one and its connections survive, when the centre of mass gains in momentum? I don't think the hat truss blew apart, I think it may have been torn apart during the collapse, I don't think you can see through the dust and smoke to be sure its not there 0.25 seconds in? The centre of mass is evidently enough to destroy the lower section.




all the way up as the towers were constructed the core always rose three stories above floor levels...so does this say it is not able to support itself when 16 floor of the north tower collapsed....nope.


So what about if the core was stood there from bottom to top undamaged would it topple?




I love how i have been showing actual steel and how it concerns the collapse yet the regulars are not in here arguing the toss....what is being shown is that the OS has lied....It has misled the public...and you yourself have just stated you do not believe the very paper that the OS seems to hold so dear...so therefore you yourself have just said you have been lied to by the OS concerning this matter.


No I have not said that, you did.




Also if you understood the images of the collapse i have done...you would see that at least 8 floors of the upper block should have penetrated into the lower block by that amount give or take a floor or two...yet that is not what is observed now is it....what is observed is that the upper block is in fact compressing magically into itself before it even affects the lower block....see the markings and the red slider that represents the entire upper block....Please explain this result if you wouldn't mind


You are treating the objects as rigid, solid blocks which is not what they are, that's why you cannot understand what you are seeing.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by AvadaKedavra14
 


I actually understand exactly what i am seeing...how much should the upper part have penetrated into the lower part...check the line to the right...also each and every column is a solid block in and of itself is it not..

Also i definitely do not consider Bazants PE as true...how can it possibly be that...greening has stated exactly how Bazant et al came up with it...they averaged it throughout the structure...but if you looked through this thread you will see this is not the case....the steel columns in the lower section were as much as 4" thick...yet in the upper section they go down to as little as 3/4" plate....also each and every perimeter column was about 1" thick at the lower levels...yet near the upper section they are down to 1/4" thick....so right there the mass of the upper section are off by a factor of 4 just on the mass of metal alone.

NOTE:just to show i do not just make up generalizations....like this so called professional has.....here....LIES.


where mf is the mass of one WTC floor, assumed to be 1/110 the mass of an entire WTC
tower, namely mf = (510,000,000 / 110) kg  4,636,000 kg


This is from energy transfer by DR greening....The same figures used by Bazant.
that is completely erroneous and you are choosing to believe it....the calculation is complete and undoubtably wrong as this thread has clearly shown.....therefore the whole paper is Erroneous.

Also NIST stated SEVERED columns...and as you can see i have been very diligent is seeking out metal from the towers....guess what....i have located burnt columns from the damaged areas...bent...twisted...but not severed...also even the external columns as you can go through the thread...bent twisted...but not severed...bazant also assumes complete failure and a freefall collapse onto the floors below...but explain this please...did the columns just disappear...to cause this initial drop...no..they would need to buckle....bend then drop...this alone would affect the KE .

Now you stated you just consider Bazants' calcs as accurate...so i did say you do not believe in his paper as you stated that it is not a block falling...well according to bazant...it is a block falling...so you either believe his paper in it's entirety or you don't....that is very clear is it not....So as for his calcs....do you still believe the calcs as you now know greening stated how he came up with these false numbers....Why would you believe false data...that is worse than just blindly believing the paper itself do you not think.

Now you state the center of mass is enough to destroy the lower section...the only tower to be consider here would be the north tower...as if it fails the whole scenario fails as it has the least amount of available PE.

Please, now knowing what you know about the falsities of the calculations....is the papers calcs to be believed at all....I should think not.
edit on 103131p://f24Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)
edit on 103131p://f25Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)
edit on 103131p://f35Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)
edit on 103131p://f47Sunday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Hi plube, I agree with your analysis and the series of photos with the slider is very telling. Just to add my own view on the subject, I feel that the top section should have shown some notable sideways movement as well. Not "tilting" per se, more of a walking motion, seeing as steel columns are not generally prone to compression, and unless they all simultaneously turned to spaghetti.



posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


thanks for the reply...I could not agree more with you on that...there should have been a shift at least off center one would think....Tilting....or even a twisting...this is steel ....the fires were not covering the entire floor so definitely in my opinion there should not be a symmetrical collapse...not in just one case but in three cases.

I hope that i will be able to show locations of some of the pieces i have found so far...but it is a lot to go through...I am happy that i have found so much of the steel...it is very very telling i believe.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 





I actually understand exactly what i am seeing...how much should the upper part have penetrated into the lower part...check the line to the right...also each and every column is a solid block in and of itself is it not..


The towers were not solid blocks though, so when the top section starts descend we are not going to see a jolt on the roof line. if it was two solid sections coming together like 2 blocks of ice, the top block of ice's roof line would visibly jolt as it met the below block.




Also i definitely do not consider Bazants PE as true...how can it possibly be that...greening has stated exactly how Bazant et al came up with it...they averaged it throughout the structure...but if you looked through this thread you will see this is not the case....the steel columns in the lower section were as much as 4" thick...yet in the upper section they go down to as little as 3/4" plate....also each and every perimeter column was about 1" thick at the lower levels...yet near the upper section they are down to 1/4" thick....so right there the mass of the upper section are off by a factor of 4 just on the mass of metal alone.


Fair point, I will look into this further and EDIT this paragraph with a more detailed reply, watch this space please.




NOTE:just to show i do not just make up generalizations....like this so called professional has.....here....LIES. where mf is the mass of one WTC floor, assumed to be 1/110 the mass of an entire WTC tower, namely mf = (510,000,000 / 110) kg  4,636,000 kg This is from energy transfer by DR greening....The same figures used by Bazant. that is completely erroneous and you are choosing to believe it....the calculation is complete and undoubtably wrong as this thread has clearly shown.....therefore the whole paper is Erroneous.


Again I will get back to you on this later today with a reply.




Also NIST stated SEVERED columns...and as you can see i have been very diligent is seeking out metal from the towers....guess what....i have located burnt columns from the damaged areas...bent...twisted...but not severed...also even the external columns as you can go through the thread...bent twisted...but not severed...bazant also assumes complete failure and a freefall collapse onto the floors below...but explain this please...did the columns just disappear...to cause this initial drop...no..they would need to buckle....bend then drop...this alone would affect the KE .


I know NIST said severed, I would have thought that the perimeter columns connections would be sheared when the plane impacts them, as a pose to the actual columns being severed.




Now you stated you just consider Bazants' calcs as accurate...so i did say you do not believe in his paper as you stated that it is not a block falling...well according to bazant...it is a block falling...so you either believe his paper in it's entirety or you don't....that is very clear is it not....So as for his calcs....do you still believe the calcs as you now know greening stated how he came up with these false numbers....Why would you believe false data...that is worse than just blindly believing the paper itself do you not think.


I disagree with the block theory I always have, however the PE calcs were in line with other calcs, I want to research this issue further though.




Now you state the center of mass is enough to destroy the lower section...the only tower to be consider here would be the north tower...as if it fails the whole scenario fails as it has the least amount of available PE. Please, now knowing what you know about the falsities of the calculations....is the papers calcs to be believed at all....I should think not.


The centre of mass, once falling smashed components and connections and floors etc and there was no way to stop it, as it did gain is size although there was a proportion of falling mass which was projected laterally like the perimeter columns. Again most engineers can understand that when such a huge dynamic load come crashing down, it cannot be arrested by the lower floors as it gains in momentum.

Acceleration of the center of mass of the falling parts never reached g, Some of the potential energy was more or less continually used up to break steel connections, crush concrete, move air, create heat, create seismic waves etc. The largest expender of energy would be material destruction.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
i am now going to post steel from impact areas...also one thing i am noticing through the steel...Is the lack of scorch marks from the lower sections...this would be pertinent as the fire underground should have exposed the steel to this i would think...I will look further into it...

As a reply to the post above....I feel you are now repeating....the center of mass on the north tower would be directly down the core structure....so are you now saying the center of mass has to proceed through the path of absolute greatest resistance....also you are still trying to justify the mass calcilations from Bazant...i showed you the erroneous method used...it should be quite clear to you...so why should i watch the space if your not able to comprehend what was stated...the numbers came right from DR Greenings transfer of momentum paper...which are the exact same numbers as he stated from the Bazant Greening paper.I showed the quote and told you the paper....I have spent years showing the falsehoods of Bazants paper...and you know something....when an OS supporter come in quoting his papers...i know that they do not have a clue as to the content of the paper itself.

so back to the steel from impact areas....lets look.





this one below is interesting...the Aluminum cladding is...YES melted to the steel...but the steel is not touched...that does say a lot about the fires.

Shall we continue...I will tie everything together but there is a lot of material to go through...i can only do things as i have the time available...this below...is a core column from impact area...can tell by thickness as was explained before...very little fire damage.

this is one that suffer direct impact...Maybe someone will find the exact location for me....but i will find it...To me it looks as though it could be the engine of a plane that left the marks...just my opinion...see below.

lets keep going....





I think it is getting more and more obvious that fries were not as major of a factor that we are led to believe....Keeping in mind this is all my opinion....i am just presenting right now.....as i search and search and search the steel.
this is what i have found so far...interestingly the fire damage does seem very minimal to me....
edit on 083131p://f00Monday by plube because: (no reason given)
edit on 083131p://f10Monday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


In regard to your pictures, re you expecting to see anything in particular on the steel? It was not melted after all just weakened by fires.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
I said i would get back with something on the mechanical floors....but i did come across this which shows something very interesting....watch as the collapse progresses...and then what happens when it reaches the mechanical floors....I see a burst of energy there....laterally....different color smoke expels from the mechanical floor region...the darker gray line area.



lets look at a few frames...



approx a 1/4sec later see the difference at the mechanical floor level



then we move approx another 1/4...six frames of a 29fps vid



then ten frames later...high expenditure of debris laterally....Smoke is white in color at mech floor level...and then axial rotation ceases....then collapse progresses as though no resistance.....what explains this action?


Superb thread Plube! Thank you very much for all your hard work & efforts!!! You, Anok, Psikey and a few others always make me smile.

It seems your opponents have very little to say in this thread & what little they do say is not exactly meeting with my own experiences in reality. Great job!

But about this video you just posted above, "911 molten metal steel wtc pouring out long clip NIST FOIA " -- I don't know if it is that I've not seen this clip before - but something that was new to me & struck me as VERY odd upon viewing it at high quality on full-screen, made me make sure I had to mention it here.

From 1:42-1:45 in this video that I just mentioned in the paragraph above - the paragraph above the one you are reading right now!... (sorry to be superfluous but I like to be as detailed and step by step as possible to help the debunkers avoid confusion at any moment,.. they sure seem to think threads in this forum are about other things often,..short attention spans?),.. anyway, from 1 minute & 42 seconds, for approximately 3 seconds -- right smack dab in the middle of the G.D. picture frame, there is a HUGE section of the building that does a 180 degree twist to the right as it goes down. It looks to be at least a 5 story-high-worth of a chunk, possibly from the corner. I've never noticed this, "I'm a WTC tower so 'let's do the twist' thing," discussed before at all, let alone in any depth. So I thought I might point it out to you professionals just in case I missed the thread or you guys missed it in general (unlikely but you never know & I enjoy helping whenever I can).

I often think back to a picture I saw a week after the tragedy of a little boy crying his eyes out & holding a picture of his missing father. He's all of us, we owe to him to find out what happened to his father & make sure this never happens again. Some people, I think, lose sight of the human effect of this horrible event.

Thanks again for all you do!



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by AvadaKedavra14
 


If you want melted i can show you melted...but no....i would expect steel from the impact area to be twisted and buckled severely in order to justify the collapse of the upper part of the towers in the fashion that we are presented by the OS....it is just another area that is not adding up...so please do not do the typical OS thing and put in words that are there...and make assumptions about what is being presented ...I am showing the steel....I show when something is just opinion...and i try to present it in a fashion to invoke thought in which people will take it upon themselves to seek answers....i do not have the answers...but in my opinion...the fires and the impacts did not bring these structures down...so the question is...what brought them down....the only evidence available to people is the video and pictorial evidence...so that is what is being presented.
I have been here to long to allow things to get derailed into micro discussions...but i always try to answers questions to the best of my ability.

So when you can come back and actually answer questions that are presented to you then i will return the favor So have you figured out if i was wrong with those calculations presented by Bazant Greening Et al.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Pagedisciple
 


thanks for the interesting aspect that you have noted...but Now i don't like you....lol.

It now makes me want to analyze every single frame .....which i have already started to do now....i notice some things in there myself now like the way some things are expelled upwards but i will have to now look closer as it could be light weight aluminum cladding...but it it is steel then that would be something that would need explaining...the twisting bit i believe is some of the core structure but it is odd the the seems to be completely separated of any truss assemblies....lets have a look because i have now taken it out frame by frame the entire clip.






Definitely interesting thank you for pointing it out....gives me food for thought...wont jump any conclusions...but it does appear to be stripped of all I-beams and truss sections that may have been attached to it as some point.

will do some close ups and see if we can increase the clarity of the image....thanks for your observations.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
The question should be how did the sagging trusses pull the in the columns to begin with?

I also don't get it why the columns were pulled inside rather than to the outside. The pulling force of the sagging trusses is not very convincing. It would have to be scientificly proven for me to buy it.


IF the trusses could put a pulling force on the columns, why did the connections not fail first?

The bolts broke off eventually when the columns shifted and that caused the decks to go. Nothing wrong with that.


How did failed connections of truss seats cause the central core to break up into individual lengths of steel?

This is the bulletproof proof for the WTC swindle. Columns can not fold under gravity like that into a neat symetrical colapse. Not only the inner grid, also the outsde walls could not.





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join