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 GenRadek
The reason why they havent done so is, that, to the experts, the collapse is pretty much mustard after the meal. They wanted to find out what caused the START of the collapse, but unfortunately for you, they actually UNDERSTOOD that once the collapse started, nothing was going to stop it. They did not feel the need to go into another super detailed investigation to figure out that once the collapse started, it will fall down. The unique design of the building helped facilitate the total collapse and this has been brought up by other independent persons and organizations. But the point is that they had the way the building was designed in their hands and just from the blueprints, could see that the floor connections and the way it was built would not have been able to arrest the collapse.
The floors were NOT holding up the floor above them. They just held up their weight.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It's pretty obvious to me that beam was bent when it was very hot. Bend cold steel and it will show cracks around the bend.
Even IF the fires reached 1000c, it would take far more than an hour for that heat to transfer to the steel.
Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by psikeyhackr
The entire construction acted together to support the weight above them. The guy who posted, "the floors did not support the floors above them," is talking out the side of his neck. Anyone with half a brain would know the individual floors were necessary to provide support for the floors above them. Any building requires bottom support and that includes the floors below. Next thing you know, this joker is going to come back and say a house of cards only requires cards placed on edge and not flat cards on top of each floor.
Originally posted by WoodSpirit
reply to post by GoodOlDave
Before I go further, a quick question, do you agree that at least the lower beam in the pic is not a core column, but a piece of exterior wall?
And where would you say was the bent beam located in the building?edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by psikeyhackr
The entire construction acted together to support the weight above them. The guy who posted, "the floors did not support the floors above them," is talking out the side of his neck. Anyone with half a brain would know the individual floors were necessary to provide support for the floors above them. Any building requires bottom support and that includes the floors below. Next thing you know, this joker is going to come back and say a house of cards only requires cards placed on edge and not flat cards on top of each floor.
Originally posted by totallackey
Then why would the NIST see fit to even mention stress rates on the concrete floors of the towers?
You people amaze me with your lack of vision. To think the entire construction was not crucial to the building remaining standing is so freaking ridiculous as to defy any response. Youse guys are dismissed.
Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by exponent
I will simply state you should read my now edited post. Again, you have ZERO clue about what you are writing.
Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by exponent ETA: For someone who claims familiarity with the NIST Reports, you should not even be posting the nonsense you just posted. NCSTAR 1-2B page 75 of 290 total pages proves your statement TOTALLY false.
Impact damage to the floor trusses and floor slabs could have significantly contributed to the loss of
structural strength and subsequent collapse. The truss floor sections provided lateral support to the
exterior wall at each floor level. Any damage or holes in the concrete floor slab could provide a path for
the fires to spread from floor-to-floor. Therefore, the calculation of the floor system damage was an
important component of the global impact analyses.
Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by exponent
So the word "COLLAPSE," obviously means nothing to you. Are you being purposefully obtuse? What do you think the towers collapsed to...the nearest available cloud, perhaps?
Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by exponent
You can read my posts and determine exactly what I am stating. The entire building construction was required in order to resist the gravity and remain standing. You can certainly erect a tower with no floors and it will remain standing; however, once you add floors to any structure, their existence MUST CONTRIBUTE toward the resistance to gravity.
Again, to state otherwise is false.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
What are you basing that on? If steel would show cracks from being bent it would mean it was a brittle metal, and without even looking it up I know they'd want the steel to be flexible since the building would necessarily have been designed to sway in the wind.
If fires had caused this column to fail in this way then it would have signs of fire damage on it I.E. blackened areas or deformations in the metal. Like I said, physics need to apply to your conspiracy claims just as they do to everyone else.
No, this beam was destroyed by the mechanical forces from the collapse itself, which sipports the scenario that, yes, the collapsing wreckage did legitimately have enough force to destroy the stationary floors and columns beneath it. The information this column contains is the whole reason why they preserved this specimen.
Some metals, such as most conventional steels, become extremely brittle at cryogenic temperatures, and can't be used as they have little or no resistance to the propagation of cracks. Note that this is not the same thing as "strength"; a material can be strong (resist separating when pulled), but relatively brittle.
Indeed, it turns out that things like carbon steel become brittle because they get *stronger* at cryogenic temperatures.