Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
9/11 Revisited Again
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="waroftheworlds" data-source="post: 20157" data-attributes="member: 471"><p><strong>Re: 9/11 Revisited Again</strong></p><p></p><p>I've been interested in building design and construction for a long time now and looking at some of the articles and posts above, I think some people are taking them at face value rather than looking at the other side of the story.</p><p></p><p>Firstly with regards to the collapse of the WTC towers. The core was designed, as is rightly said, to support the building weight multiple times over, and house lifts, ducting, cables, electricity, gas, water and stairs as well, to create an open-plan working area. In my mind there is no doubt that the core failed on at least one building though I cannot remember if it was WTC 1 or 2. If you look at footage of the building coming down, on one of the towers you can plainly see that the core remains intact for a few seconds AFTER the building collapses round it.</p><p></p><p>What I am putting to you now is that there was another factor aside from possible core breakdown and that is the floor structure. The floors were made up of trusses- think of thick, crossbraced lattice structures, going vertically, supporting a floor on top and ceiling underneath- thats what the floors of the WTC were made of. These were (supposed to be) sprayed with a fire proof foam layer to prevent fire and heat getting to the trusses- if heat and fire get to them they are as good as guaranteed to collapse. </p><p></p><p>Before 9/11, a survey was undertaken on the trusses to assess the condition of the fire proofing. It was found that large sections, particularly around the joints between the outer 'skin' of the tower and the inner core, were largely unprotected as well as the cross bracing on the crossbraces. This means that large amounts of heat and flame were probably able to get to the trusses and warp them to the point that they would collapse- think of heating a plastic rod while holding it horizontal. </p><p></p><p>The above argument explains the collapse of the floors in both the buildings. On just one of the two towers, the aircraft collision was such that the aircraft penetrated the core of the building, meaning that the structure was weakened because the flame and heat had a way of getting into the core- the core was protected by sheets of fireproof cladding. I believe this was blown off the core during the collision of the aircraft which allowed for heat to penetrate the core of the building. </p><p></p><p>The reason that the core stayed intact on one building and didn't on another was again caused by the collision of the aircraft- one managed to penetrate the core and the other did not.</p><p></p><p>What we have to remember is that the building was designed in the 1960's, and only built to withstand the impact of the biggest and fastest commercial airliner then- the 707. Fire caused by fuel was not considered- only impact. Aircraft have moved on. Nor can we say 'Well, another steelframed building caught fire and didn't collapse....' Each building design is different! One building could stay perfectly in shape but a similar sized building with a different construction method could topple like a house of cards. The method of construction used for the WTC was designed to allow quick and cheap building, unlike many other construction methods.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="waroftheworlds, post: 20157, member: 471"] [b]Re: 9/11 Revisited Again[/b] I've been interested in building design and construction for a long time now and looking at some of the articles and posts above, I think some people are taking them at face value rather than looking at the other side of the story. Firstly with regards to the collapse of the WTC towers. The core was designed, as is rightly said, to support the building weight multiple times over, and house lifts, ducting, cables, electricity, gas, water and stairs as well, to create an open-plan working area. In my mind there is no doubt that the core failed on at least one building though I cannot remember if it was WTC 1 or 2. If you look at footage of the building coming down, on one of the towers you can plainly see that the core remains intact for a few seconds AFTER the building collapses round it. What I am putting to you now is that there was another factor aside from possible core breakdown and that is the floor structure. The floors were made up of trusses- think of thick, crossbraced lattice structures, going vertically, supporting a floor on top and ceiling underneath- thats what the floors of the WTC were made of. These were (supposed to be) sprayed with a fire proof foam layer to prevent fire and heat getting to the trusses- if heat and fire get to them they are as good as guaranteed to collapse. Before 9/11, a survey was undertaken on the trusses to assess the condition of the fire proofing. It was found that large sections, particularly around the joints between the outer 'skin' of the tower and the inner core, were largely unprotected as well as the cross bracing on the crossbraces. This means that large amounts of heat and flame were probably able to get to the trusses and warp them to the point that they would collapse- think of heating a plastic rod while holding it horizontal. The above argument explains the collapse of the floors in both the buildings. On just one of the two towers, the aircraft collision was such that the aircraft penetrated the core of the building, meaning that the structure was weakened because the flame and heat had a way of getting into the core- the core was protected by sheets of fireproof cladding. I believe this was blown off the core during the collision of the aircraft which allowed for heat to penetrate the core of the building. The reason that the core stayed intact on one building and didn't on another was again caused by the collision of the aircraft- one managed to penetrate the core and the other did not. What we have to remember is that the building was designed in the 1960's, and only built to withstand the impact of the biggest and fastest commercial airliner then- the 707. Fire caused by fuel was not considered- only impact. Aircraft have moved on. Nor can we say 'Well, another steelframed building caught fire and didn't collapse....' Each building design is different! One building could stay perfectly in shape but a similar sized building with a different construction method could topple like a house of cards. The method of construction used for the WTC was designed to allow quick and cheap building, unlike many other construction methods. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
9/11 Revisited Again
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top