|New Civilization News: 9/11 whistleblower fired|
Category: Housing, Building, Architecture
14 comments18 Nov 2004 @ 00:38 by mmmark : Bolts
The PBS documentary revealed that the use of 3/4" bolts hold the steel joists in place were up to the task even of the steel was up to code.
18 Nov 2004 @ 03:04 by ming : Bolts
That the bolts were *not* up to code, even if the steel itself were?
See, that's the kind of thing that might actually explain it, without conspiracies. But not as long as the official explanation still is that the heat from burning fuel melted the supporting beams.
18 Nov 2004 @ 03:30 by bushman : Another Therory not talked about.
Is, that under the WTC's towers was the subway system, also the towers were built around a central core suport system, the central core was basicly hollow fuel ran down the core, and acted like a blast furnace in a way, like the flu of a chiminey, the fire could of been hot enough to melt the steel. If they had drop down doors at the subway platforms, that sealed off air flow from the bottom, the fires would of starved and never got hot enough.
18 Nov 2004 @ 11:20 by ming : Fire
That just doesn't fit with the physics of burning fuel. Yes, one found, several months later, a lot of molten steel in the foundation. Which couldn't really have been caused by burning fuel, however much oxygen it had.
But if nobody had thought about the bolts that held the whole thing together, and the bolts melted at a different temperature, that could be a reasonable explanation. I haven't seen anything on that.
The buildings were built to high standards of being able to withstand even extreme events. It could entirely be possible that the standards were wrong, and one had discovered conditions that would be catastrophic. But the very suspicious thing is that they didn't. If the norms were wrong, somebody should be rewriting the text books. Just like when a bridge unexpectedly fell down because it started swinging at a certain frequency in certain types of wind. One had to revise the rules of building bridges, and the mistake wouldn't have to be made again. So far nobody has pointed out any mistake in the construction of the WTC that would add up to revising the methods it was constructed with.
18 Nov 2004 @ 18:31 by Chris Hagglund @18.104.22.168 : Thermite
One thing that will melt steel like that and smolder with white smoke like the remains did is something called thermite. It is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum dust, and it burns hot like hell. If this material had been strategically placed on the supports of the building it would have resulted in their collapse. This stuff also doesnt ignite easily, but burning jet fuel would probably set it off. Scary stuff, but it fits with what has been observed. This page is themed along these lines: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.htm
28 Nov 2004 @ 19:24 by bushman : Explosions,
in the lower levels below the street. I found this today.
16 Aug 2006 @ 09:45 by Bill Heimiller @22.214.171.124 : WTF on WTC steel letter...
'Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter". '
Maybe this guy's letter should get him fired.
Why didn't he just email Gayle with his questions instead of suggesting so much? He goes on about emotions and 9/11, and suggests Gayle may be spreading disinformation. Ryan's points/questions seem valid, which make his letter that much more tragically nulled, to an extent. Maybe he should've kept it short, AND consulted his boss before he sent it.
Maybe Ryan felt responsible himself, as his company certified the steel that the NIST said failed.
One thing is sure though, the NIST should provide an acceptable answer to Ryan's questions.
16 Dec 2006 @ 22:16 by Gregg Roberts @126.96.36.199 : Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?
If you’ve ever wondered why there aren’t (or don’t seem to be) more whistleblowers — particularly, ANY with true inside-the-plot knowledge — I have written a scholarly essay about it:
28 Jun 2008 @ 16:32 by Chuck Boldwyn @188.8.131.52 : Impossibility of Collapse w/o Explosives
It has been repeatedly reported that the strength of the WTC steel could support 2000% of it's normal load. This mean that you could stack 19 additional WTC buildings on top of the original WTC building before it might collapse. that would be an additional (110 x 19 = 2,090) additional
WTC stories vertically on top of the original WTC skyscraper. Therefore how could 10 to 25 stories get enough enough momentum to initiate total collapse of the remaining, basically unblemished, majority of the building below it.
The Physics 'Normal' upward supporting force was thousands of times greater than the downward Gravitational force of the upper portion of the building.
The case rests there. The basic laws of Physics cannot be broken. Newton's 3 laws of motion and the Conservation of Momentum Law and the Conservation of Energy Law simply cannot be broken because the Government and the Media propaganda to the contrary. I think a person needs a Physics background, who is able to apply the Laws of Physics, theoretically and/or mathematically to truly understand what is going on with the collapse. Only powerful steel cutting explosives can come close to explaining the total collapse the the WTC 1 and WTC 2.
If this conclusion is wrong, please add your comment in favor or not in favor of the conclusion. If you think it is wrong, please explain why it is wrong...
28 Jun 2008 @ 18:17 by bushman : Yep
Dosnt take a PHD to see what they did.
29 Jun 2008 @ 08:31 by Chuck Boldwyn @184.108.40.206 : Impossibility of Collapse w/o Explosives
This is to edit or revise and correct my initial input statement of 6-28-08.
It has been repeatedly reported in 911 books and internet articles that the strength of the WTC steel could support 2000% of it's normal gravity load. This mean that you could stack 19 additional WTC buildings on top of the original WTC building before it might collapse. That would be an additional
(110 x 19 = 2,090) additional WTC stories vertically on top of the original WTC skyscraper. Therefore how could 15 stories from the South Tower or 30 stories from the North Tower gain enough acceleration and momentum to initiate total collapse of the remaining, basically unblemished, majority of the building below it.
The Physics 'Normal' Force Vector upwards is the supporting force for the lower undamaged portion of the WTC. The upward supporting force vector for the South Tower is calculated to be 46 times greater that the downwards Gravitational Force Vector of the 30 stories of the upper portion.
The upward supporting force vector for the North Tower is calculated to be 127 times greater than the downwards Gravitational Force Vector of the 15 stories of it's upper portion.
The case for Impossibility of Collapse rests there.
The basic laws of Physics cannot be broken. Newton's 3 laws of motion and the Conservation of Momentum Law and the Conservation of Energy Law simply cannot be broken because the Government and the Government supporting Media propagandize to the contrary.
I believe a person needs a Physics background, who is able to apply the Laws of Physics, theoretically and/or mathematically, to truly understand what is going on with the mechanism of collapse. Only very powerful high temperature steel-cutting explosives can come close to explaining the total collapse of the WTC 1 and WTC 2.
If this conclusion is wrong, please add your comments to explain how and why it may be wrong. The collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were both initiated by explosives and were followed by hundreds of additional explosions moving floor by floor downwards until total collapse was accomplished...
Chuck Boldwyn, Retired Physics and Chemistry Teacher...9-29-08
It appears that a lot of part-time Government scientists will turn out to be labled "Quacks" or incompetents and will have destroyed thier credibility as Scientists. These scientists who support the "original Conspiracy Theory" of the Government have lost thier scientific face with the 911 Truth Movement Scientific community and other non-biased Scients throughout the world...
25 Dec 2009 @ 17:15 by psikeyhackr @220.127.116.11 : Physics without DATA? LOL
Let’s just face a few simple facts.
Skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up. They must also sway in the wind. The people who design skyscrapers MUST figure out how much steel and how much concrete they are going to put on every level before they even dig the hole for the foundation.
After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTCs 1&2? The NIST report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete. The total for the steel is in three places. So even if the planes did it that 10,000 page report is CRAP!
Conspiracies are irrelevant. The Truth Movement should be marching on all of the engineering schools in the country.
Watch that Purdue simulation. If a 150 ton airliner crashes near the top of a skyscraper at 440 mph isn’t the building going to sway? Didn’t the survivors report the building “moving like a wave”? So why do the core columns in the Purdue video remain perfectly still as the plane comes in?
That is the trouble with computer simulations. If they are good, they are very good. But if they have a defect either accidental or deliberate they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure out the flaws.
The distributions of steel and concrete are going to affect the sway of a skyscraper whether it is from the wind or an airliner.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
How much does one complete floor assembly weigh?
You know those square donut floor slabs? They were 205 ft square with a rectangular hole for the core. There was a steel rebar mesh embedded in the concrete which was poured onto corrugated steel pans which were supported by 35 and 60 foot trusses. There has been talk about those things pancaking on each other for years.
But has anyone ever said what the whole thing weighed? Why haven't we seen that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS? The concrete alone is easy to compute, about 601 tons. But the concrete could not be separated from the entire assembly, the knuckles of the trusses were embedded in the concrete. So what did the whole thing weigh and why haven't the EXPERTS mentioned that A LOT?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So why hasn't Richard Gage and his buddies produced a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS fo CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? How much computing power do they have compared to the early 1960s when the buildings were designed? I asked Gage about that in May of 2008 at Chicago Circle Campus and he got a surprised look on his face and gave me this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. Gravity hasn't changed since the 1960s. They should be able to come up with some reasonable numbers.
22 Aug 2016 @ 05:13 by National drink of Pakistan @18.104.22.168 : Malik
All the traloom.
25 Nov 2016 @ 08:00 by BandarAsia99 @22.214.171.124 : SejarahQQ.com Agen DominoQQ Online
Thank your site! information your share is useful to me!
Other entries in Housing, Building, Architecture
2 Dec 2008 @ 22:48: Stretching and Squeezing the Agora
13 Jun 2006 @ 10:37: Roofs and Ceilings
16 May 2006 @ 10:35: American Architecture
31 Jan 2006 @ 13:08: The Wearable Home
1 Nov 2005 @ 15:52: Buy an underground city
25 Oct 2005 @ 23:03: New Orleans Arcology
15 Apr 2003 @ 04:07: ideas please
29 Jan 2002 @ 12:52: Transparent concrete
6 Oct 2001 @ 05:02: Underground Living