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.

 

i just met one of the original architects of the WTC

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Very true. I know this is one of the main reason why Dr. Quintiere has spoken up against NIST. I would think he should know what he is talking about.

Thanks for the info as I now have a little bit more of a handle on these conversions.


Indeed.

I wonder if this blows the whole " experts are afraid to disagree with NIT cuz they'll lose work" argument?

Does he disagree with NIST's findings - that plane damage and the fires brought down the towers?

I think his argument is that NIST underestimated the effects that the fires had. I think his issue is that the fires alone, if unfought, would have resulted in collapse.

So I hardly think that this is a logical paper to use against NIST since it assumes a scenario that is worse than NIST's.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Also, how do you reconcile your assertion of using an open air fire with the common assertion that the smoke from the towers indicates an air limitation on the fires? Personally, I agree with this, I see fires that have a limited air supply due to the fewer number of open windows, and the sheer distance involved for that air to get from the exterior to the available fuel. The pics one sees of the Madrid fire shows that most, if not all, of the windows were shattered. Plus, when you figure that the entire floor area at Madrid was about the size of the towers' cores, you expect that the fire has a good air supply.


Wouldn't the lack of air in the towers make it less efficient than open air fire? If so, how do we reconcile that with the high efficiency output that Nist used?

See the catch 22?



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I wonder if this blows the whole " experts are afraid to disagree with NIT cuz they'll lose work" argument?


Depends on how far one is willing to go I guess. But, it hasn't hurt my career as of yet. Nor my ability to obtain security clearance to inspect buildings.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

1-Wouldn't the lack of air in the towers make it less efficient than open air fire?

2-If so, how do we reconcile that with the high efficiency output that Nist used?

See the catch 22?


1- You're missing my point. Now matter how you slice it, ALL the heat released from the fires went into heating the whole inside of the structure, not lost going up a chimney. The amount of air available will only determine how fast the material will burn. Mace had some info on that.

2- NIST didn't use woodstoves to figure how fast the heat was released. Bsbray's source did. NIST used fuel loads. And fire engineering journals like those at mace to figure heating factors. So all the talk about efficiency is for the sole benefit of seeing whether or not the source was correct about the number of woodstoves to compare it to - and you and bsbray did some fine work proving that he, indeed, got it all wrong. Good job again.


3- yes. You're saying that it should be compared to an open fire, when that clearly isn't the case, as evidenced by the lack of flames shooting out of every window.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


So what do YOU think pulled in the exterior columns, if not the trusses? There's nothing else there to do that.....

What does Q think pulled in the ext columns? Does he think that they're not a factor?

ETA - I don't get his thinking about thermal expansion resulting in the floors coming disconnected. Isn't it an accepted fact that trusses will sag, rather than expand like a floor beam? Isn't this a critical difference between the 2 floor types?





[edit on 3-12-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
So what do YOU think pulled in the exterior columns, if not the trusses? There's nothing else there to do that.....


Without floor support (the trusses), the core columns will buckle. Remember that most of the plane would have ended up near the core too adding extra weight to the floors. We had to do some structural calcs one time for a client who wanted to install a brick cladding on one of their walls for decoration. Long story short, we were hesitant to let them but with further calcs we found it would be ok. That's just brick. If the core columns buckle, the exterior comes down too for a couple reasons. They are attached to each other by the hat truss. And the exteriors only hold about 40% of the weight.

Also, the exterior would buckle at the weakest point. Which would be the plane impact zones. Add thermite/mate to ensure a few specific floors do collapse and there you have collapse initiation.

But, as I've always said. My theory could be wrong as I'm not a fire engineer etc.


What does Q think pulled in the ext columns? Does he think that they're not a factor?


I'm not sure what he believes or if he has a theory other than the floors would have collapsed before they pulled the columns in.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

1-Without floor support (the trusses), the core columns will buckle.

2-Also, the exterior would buckle at the weakest point. Which would be the plane impact zones. Add thermite/mate to ensure a few specific floors do collapse and there you have collapse initiation.

3-I'm not sure what he believes or if he has a theory other than the floors would have collapsed before they pulled the columns in.


1- Agree

2- At first blush, this seems intuitively correct. But the hat truss distributed the loads to the other columns. NIST did an analysis of the plane crashes and determined that loads on the other columns increased... and I believe that the loads on the remaining columns on the crash side actually decreased. Wouldn't it then follow that if those weren't carrying any loads, that it wouldn't collapse first? It makes better sense that the remaining columns, with their increased loads, could collapse first if they were pulled out of the vertical by the floor trusses.

3- I thought NIST did an analysis that showed the bolts holding the floors to the ext columns were more than strong enuf to pull them?



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff



What does Q think pulled in the ext columns? Does he think that they're not a factor?


I'm not sure what he believes or if he has a theory other than the floors would have collapsed before they pulled the columns in.


I had to look into this.

Actually, Q agrees that the floor trusses would fail the ext columns.

I couldn't find any reference to his thinking that the floor trusses would have detached, resulting in Euler's buckling, etc.....


The only point of disagreement that I could glean is that NIST says that the trusses needed to have their fireprofing removed in order to sag, and Q says it wasn't needed.

So my original point stands - this is a poor paper to use as a criticism of NIST's report, since it says that NIST was too conservative in their analysis of the fire effects.

OT but it is similar to a claim I believe even you have made about NORAD on 9/11 that they lied to the 9/11 CR. They were wrong with their timelines, and their timelines made their response times look WORSE than they actually were. And since it must be admitted that the only reason to knowingly lie is to make yourself look better, this throws the line of questioning about why guys were promoted cuz they lied to be a nowhere question, since the basic belief - that they indeed lied, to be wrong. The truth is, both they and the FAA indeed didn't follow some protocols on that day, but their decisions actually decreased reaction times.

Knowledge is a wonderful thing, eh?



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
2- At first blush, this seems intuitively correct. But the hat truss distributed the loads to the other columns. NIST did an analysis of the plane crashes and determined that loads on the other columns increased... and I believe that the loads on the remaining columns on the crash side actually decreased. Wouldn't it then follow that if those weren't carrying any loads, that it wouldn't collapse first? It makes better sense that the remaining columns, with their increased loads, could collapse first if they were pulled out of the vertical by the floor trusses.


This is true while the core is intact. What happens when the core fails in my theory? I believe the hat truss would only work as a connection to cause the exterior columns to come down with it. Thus negating any distribution to other sides of the building. Didn't the hat truss need the core for it's stability?


3- I thought NIST did an analysis that showed the bolts holding the floors to the ext columns were more than strong enuf to pull them?


Two bolts per angle? Can you post this analysis? Thanks.

[edit on 12/3/2008 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


I thought I had read that somewhere. Maybe I confused him with someone else. But, all I can find is the one statement by him. I can't find a transcript to his "Questions on the WTC Investigation" presentation he did. I bought it and have it on mp3. Not sure if that's where I heard it or not. I'll have to listen to it again.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
In response to our discussion Seymour,

In Dr. Quintiere's questions to NIST posted on NIST's site there are a few statements by him that could be taken as what I said. He is very vauge and could be taken either way IMO. This must be where I got the idea that he was saying this. It would be nice to hear more from him on the matter.

I'm having a problem copying the pdf into word so I can copy the verbiage. If you need me to post where I found it, just ask. I have the pdf downloaded but I'll get the link for you.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
could it really be that simple....
we will somday know thw truth but when..



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Each WTC tower had 2500+ exterior wall panels. They supported about 50% of the weight of the buildings from the 9th floor up. The NIST admits there were 12 different types of these panels. But they do not tell us the weights and quantities of each type.

We know that the heaviest weighed 22 tons because it was mentioned in an engineering magazine from 1970.

Gregory Urich's spreadsheet says the exterior steel on the 9th, 10th and 11th floors were 487,484, and 480 tons respectively totaling 1451 but 22 tons times 76 panels is 1672 tons. And that doesn't count the corner pieces. So Urich is off by more than 221 tons near the bottom of the building and Greening said Urich's data was the best there was.

Why haven't the SCHOLARS and Engineering Schools been demanding to know the weights and quantities of the wall panels for EIGHT YEARS?

psik



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Each WTC tower had 2500+ exterior wall panels. They supported about 50% of the weight of the buildings from the 9th floor up. The NIST admits there were 12 different types of these panels. But they do not tell us the weights and quantities of each type.

We know that the heaviest weighed 22 tons because it was mentioned in an engineering magazine from 1970.

Gregory Urich's spreadsheet says the exterior steel on the 9th, 10th and 11th floors were 487,484, and 480 tons respectively totaling 1451 but 22 tons times 76 panels is 1672 tons. And that doesn't count the corner pieces. So Urich is off by more than 221 tons near the bottom of the building and Greening said Urich's data was the best there was.

Why haven't the SCHOLARS and Engineering Schools been demanding to know the weights and quantities of the wall panels for EIGHT YEARS?

psik


Why? Because they know it is irrelevant. Because they are real engineers who understand how things work in the real world. Because they are rational people. Maybe you should chalk it up to lessons learned.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


you're lack of sense coupled with your authoritative tone is hilarious.
you have no idea. the mass of the perimeter spandrel trees makes a huge difference to the expected behaviour of a progressive collapse.

there are lots of real engineers out there who are taking the time to question the validity of the NIST report.
not easy to do, either, when the NIST doesn't publish all their work. they are hiding a lot of the numbers. like, for example, the numbers they used in all their computer simulations. they are hiding lots of pictures and video. they, like you, discard any evidence that doesn't fit their predetermined outcome, ie. a natural collapse due to fire.

did you read this thread, btw? did you read that the bin laden construction company worked on the towers and asked paul laffoley where they should place the explosives?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 



[ did you read that the bin laden construction company worked on the towers and asked paul laffoley where they should place the explosives? ]

I don't recall that myself. I did read where they pointed out that it was common place to plan ahead for it's eventual takedown someday...trying to make it seem normal. But there was nothing "normal" about a concrete and steel bldg collapsing into powder...unless the reference is to other bldgs that were taken down with explosives...but of course they omitted that part.

I recall watching a vid, where you could see part of one of the steel beams, thru the billowing smoke, go up and out in an ARC, it was as plain as could be. I don't care how blind people are to this, no collapsing bldg has the energy to spit out a steel beam...up and away from the bldg in an arc.
I'd sure like to know what pushed that mother, up, and out of there like that.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join