It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The initial failure in WTC7 was not symmetrical, the only symmetrical aspect was the final global collapse, which occurs many seconds after initial failures.
The collapse was not at 'free fall speed'. It fell at free fall acceleration over only 8 storeys
Originally posted by maxella1
Many seconds.... hahaha
How many exactly?
What can make it possible for 8 stories of free fall acceleration ?
Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.
Simultaneous failure of the majority of structural support over a large enough area to reduce the resistive force. It'd have to be a pretty significant quantity of the height too but it obviously depends on the physical geometry.
the truth could be anything, be ABOUT anything, depending on how you look at it.
I'm not here to share what I know, I want to learn what the "informed" members have to say on the subject.
Originally posted by maxella1
Asymmetrical interior collapse managed to simultaneously take out the majority of structural support and reduce the resistive force symmetrically...
Wow that's deep....
Propping Up the War on Terror Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories KEVIN RYAN March 28, 2006
NIST left us with only some vague statements about a few sagging floors suddenly destroying two hundred super-strong perimeter columns and forty core columns. But since sagging floors do not weigh more than non-sagging floors, it is difficult to see how this might occur, especially so uniformly. NIST claimed the perimeter columns saw increased loads of between 0 and 25% due to the damage, but it never reconciled this with the original claim that these columns could resist 2000% increases in live load. And the outward-buckling theory, suggested by Thornton, was changed again to inward buckling---apparently the forces involved were never well defined. Additionally, NIST suggested that the documents that would support testing of the steel components, along with documents containing Skilling's jet-fuel-fire analysis, could not be found.26 Ultimately, NIST failed to give any explanation for the dynamics of the towers as they fell, about how and why they dropped like rocks in free-fall. For both buildings, NIST simply stated that "once the upper building section began to move downwards . . ., global collapse ensued," as if just saying so was enough.27 As for WTC7, NIST as of yet has not elaborated on its "working collapse hypothesis," which was vaguely presented in June 2004.28 The bottom line is that, after more than four years, it is still impossible for the government even to begin to explain the primary events that drive this War on Terrorism.
Based on very favorable assumptions for achieving a fast fall, including ignoring resistance due to intact steel columns, I could only get the building to fall in about 8.3 seconds, whereas the observed roof-fall time is approximately 6.5 seconds. The problem is the large number of floors and conservation of momentum in a collision. Some of the “official” explanations about progressive collapse are evocative but they do not explain the difficulty in the rapid fall of the building along with what is evidently taking place when the video of the falling building is observed.
A short computation Building 7 was 576 feet (176 m) tall. The speed of a ball bearing falling from the top of this building to the ground is therefore the solution to the equation which yields v = 192. Thus the time to fall to the ground would be It was observed that the building collapsed in just 6.5 seconds.1 Could this possibly happen as a result of pancaking floors collapsing from the top down? We show here that if the collisions are inelastic, such a scenario is impossible. Assume there is not support for any floor when it is hit by the collapsing floors from above. Thus it is like the floor is just floating in the air when it is hit but it is stationary. To make things general, let h denote the spacing between floors and let there be n > 2 of these floors. Let vk be the velocity of the conglomeration of k of the floors just before it hits the (k+1)st floor and let denote the velocity of the larger conglomeration of floors immediately after the k 1 v + collision. Then by conservation of momentum so 2 1 32 576 2 v = gh = × ( 192 ) 2 576 = 6 seconds. ( ) 1 1
This FEMA report, in fact, increased the mystery, thanks to an appendix written by three professors at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. This appendix reported that a piece of steel from WTC 7 had melted so severely that it had gaping holes in it, making it look like a piece of Swiss cheese.6 James Glanz, pointing out that the fires in the building could not have been hot enough to melt steel, referred to this discovery as “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”7
Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists working for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’”11 Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget—“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.”12
Indeed, it's almost like there was a central braced frame that provided the main axial and moment resistance for WTC7. Almost like there was a very clear sequence of failures (local bay -> column 79 -> penthouse to ground level -> braced frame -> global collapse) and good evidence through careful analysis of the videos (window break sequence timed extremely well, slow acceleration to freefall) etc.
Unfortunately it really doesn't support controlled demolition theories to any significant degree as they detect building movement earlier than anyone else has. Way before the global collapse initiates and with no evidence of controlled explosions.
Originally posted by exponent
Molten steel was not created, it exists only as speculation. The most likely candidates for glowing flowing liquid in the towers are aluminium, lead and glass. No test was ever done to indicate molten steel was present in any significant quantity, no evidence exists of pools of solidified steel, and no temperature measurement indicates in excess of 1250°C.
Finally, the fact that “molten steel was also found at WTC 7” was added by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., which was involved in the clean-up.37
Another study was carried out by the US Geological Survey, the purpose of which was to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.” Besides also finding iron particles, the scientists involved in this study found that molybdenum had been melted. This finding was especially significant, because this metal does not melt until it reaches 2,623°C (4,753°F).25
A steel beam on the 13th floor, NIST claims, caused a steel girder attached to Column 79 to break loose. Having lost its support, Column 79 failed, and this failure started a chain reaction, in which all 82 of the building’s steel columns failed.51 Without getting into the question of whether this is even remotely plausible, let us just focus on the question: Why did that girder fail? It failed, NIST said, because it was not connected to the floor slab with sheer studs. NIST wrote: In WTC 7, no studs were installed on the girders. Floor beams . . . had shear studs, but the girders that supported the floor beams did not have shear studs. This point was crucial to NIST’s answer to a commonly asked question: Why did fire cause WTC 7 to collapse, when fire had never before brought down steel-framed high-rise buildings, some of which had had much bigger and longer-lasting fires? NIST’s answer was: differences in design. One of those crucial differences, NIST stated repeatedly, was “the absence of [girder] shear studs that would have provided lateral restraint.” But this was a fabrication on NIST’s part. How can we know this? All we need to do is to look at NIST’s Interim Report on WTC 7, which it had published back in 2004, before it had developed its theory of girder failure. This report stated that girders as well as the beams had been attached to the floor by means of shear studs.52 We have here as clear a case of fabrication as one will see, with NIST simply making up a fact in order to meet the needs of its new theory.
Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
What ever you do -- please don't post any links to any evidence. (for those living in a fantasy world please note my sarcasm here).
Oh but if you do want to show the "real" video animation then by all means. Please show the evidence that you claim exists! You say there's a video that is the "real" -- oxymoronic "animation"? haha.
Originally posted by maxella1
Was there a central braces frame or was it almost like there was one?
How would that prove that there were no bombs in the building?
"It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building," said Mr. Hamburger, chief structural engineer for ABS Consulting in Oakland, Calif. Upon learning that no bombs had been detonated, "I was very surprised," said Mr. Hamburger. The buildings "certainly did not do as well as I would have hoped."
"By now it is accepted wisdom that the Twin Towers collapse was inevitable -- the result of extraordinary trauma followed by extraordinary fire."