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.
Kevin Ryan, formerly of Underwriters Laboratories (UL) (Edit by NAM: who was fired for asking questions about the steel he was involved in testing and certifying as it related to the twin towers), made a post back in January of 2008 at 9/11 Blogger showing that the floors of the WTC that had the fire-proofing upgraded, matched almost exactly to the floors that were impacted and failed in both towers:
It now turns out the company that did those upgrades is Turner Construction company.
Turner Construction Company also helped plan and oversee the demolition of the Seattle Kingdome in 2000:
Turner Construction Company also occupied the 38th floor of WTC 1:
Turner Construction Company particpated in the collection and disposal of the steel wreckage of the WTC towers following September 11, 2001:
reply to post by OneFreeMan
So they faked the Empire State Builidng too in the 1940s? Because a much smaller plane had debris go all the way through the building. So how is it that a B-25 can do that to a concrete building at low speed, but a high speed plane, that's over 5 times heavier when empty, can't go into a steel building?
Why do you think the "static discharge" emitted from that point along the lower right fuselage, to the right of and well back from, the nose of the aircraft? Would it not jump from the closest point, which would be the nose itself?
The stills and videos you're using are of such horrendously low quality -- multi-generational digitally compressed YouTube videos -- that no determination of accuracy can be made.
In 2001, it was common for source video to be 15 frames-per second (or less) when converted to digital. A great deal can happen in real-world speed in the 1/15th of a second between those frames.
It's absolute misinformed short-sighted absurd inane madness to rely on these YouTube videos, with no indication of provenance, for anything that resembles proof of anything other than, "yup, that's a YouTube video."
Seriously. Anyone with genuine earnestness on these matters would seek out the original footage.
reply to post by randyvs
Have you ever looked at the tensile strength of aircraft aluminum? Obviously not. It's stronger than steel.
A36 steel, which made up at least part of the WTC structure.
Mechanical Properties Metric Imperial
Tensile Strength, Ultimate 400 - 550 MPa 58000 - 79800 psi
Tensile Strength, Yield 250 MPa 36300 psi
Elongation at Break (in 200 mm) 20.0 % 20.0 %
Elongation at Break (in 50 mm) 23.0 % 23.0 %
Modulus of Elasticity 200 GPa 29000 ksi
Bulk Modulus (typical for steel) 140 GPa 20300 ksi
Poissons Ratio 0.260 0.260
Shear Modulus 79.3 GPa 11500 ksi
7075 aluminum, which is used in aircraft.
Ultimate Tensile Strength 572 MPa 83000 psi AA; Typical
Tensile Yield Strength 503 MPa 73000 psi AA; Typical
Elongation at Break 11 % 11 % AA; Typical; 1/16 in. (1.6 mm) Thickness
Elongation at Break 11 % 11 % AA; Typical; 1/2 in. (12.7 mm) Diameter
Modulus of Elasticity 71.7 GPa 10400 ksi AA; Typical; Average of tension and compression. Compression modulus is about 2% greater than tensile modulus.
Shear Modulus 26.9 GPa 3900 ksi
Shear Strength 331 MPa 48000 psi AA; Typical
The ultimate tensile strength of the aluminum is almost 4000 psi higher than the steel.
I'm still waiting to hear how a B-25, a full 4 1/2 times LIGHTER than an EMPTY 767 when fully loaded, went all the way through a building, but a fully loaded 767 couldn't. Please. Explain that to me.
reply to post by NewAgeMan
YOU don't understand the LOADS that the structure was under at the time or the DYNAMIC LOAD imposed on the lower structure as it fell I will give you an example which may help.
Lets look at a 10kg object falling the the height of a WTC floor approx 4mts
Use this link Impact Calculator
Impact energy just before it touches the floor below 392J of energy.
The next part is the hardest as the structure below DIDN'T/COULDN'T resit the load lets work it out if it just manage to.
The floor trusses were supported on cleats (angle iron) welded at the core side to a channel welded to the core columns and also to the wall columns.
Truss image below
There are images showing cleats sheared off so the weld failed and some of the top part of the cleat sheared off.
This cleat was about 1" (25.4mm) thick lest say that stops our dropping load just at the point it's about to shear so 25.4mm or 0.0254 mtr put that in the calculator above.
That gives a figure of 15433 n now dived that by 9.81 to convert to kg and that is 1573kg or 1.5 tons of impact energy.
The floors FAILED as the falling load hit them so that's why I made the assumption if they did stop they didn't so whats your take on that.
This is just to illustrate the HUGE loads generated in such a situation we can NEVER know the exact details of the impact events we can only see the result.
In fact here is a link to calculations of force on a driver in a crash.
Force on driver in a car crash
DON'T drive to close eh!!!