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: cestrup
a reply to: wmd_2008
It's really a waste of time replying with you. There's so much wrong in this post it really isn't worth getting into because you'll just butcher your next response and the cycle will continue. As far as NIST is concerned, we were talking about building 7, not the towers -- but you knew this and copied materials discussing a different Building. You're doing nothing to add to this conversation and it's rather tiresome having to explain your flaws.
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: wmd_2008
Yes I said typed the words loony tunes and put them in quotes because the idea of a plane shaped hole was "loony tunes" to some... Even tho it happened twice on the morning of 911...
Do you not see in the bold part where I use quotations?
I really hope you weren't using my post as me taking the loony tunes outline as serious as hello bruce who linked a literal picture of a loony tune and compared it too the hole in the tower..
We know nist didn't say fire was the prime reason it fell, but they say that fire was the prime reason all those other small things turned into huge massive failures that trigger the two standing death traps that apparently were just waiting to fall. That each floor could not support the one above. Does that mean that all it would have took was 1 floor to fail and it was game over for that building? Oh and your photo is from a site that thinks that the towers were demoed with nukes, so I am almost certain you are using it out of context
Like many of the terms you have been using, loose, loose definitions of them. But that is the nist way of doing things as well, dip and doge with new science and never before seen events
Oh and it seems that builders know how to build buildings with fire in mind
911research.wtc7.net...
Sure 1 and 2 had planes hit them, but again, those did not initiate the collapse, fire is the big bad boogey man of 911
originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Sremmos80
Wow, that slowed footage of the jet colliding didn't look right. I've also seen another where the jet flickers moments before impact. youtu.be...
This is just so hard to talk about because the technology is way beyond civilian realm. I do love some William Cooper though. Could you imagine if military tech is 50-100 years ahead? Scary
Thanks for the video, dude!
The Floors of the towers were never designed to support the floor above that is the point you DON'T get.
Structural engineers do not traditionally consider fire as an actual load on the structural frame. What are we doing as an industry to allow this to happen? Seismic design relies on modelling, risk analysis and changes to the structural stiffness. Wind design relies on additional structural members and wind tunnel tests. Current fire design relies on very simple, single element tests and adding insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for
The boot-shaped high-rise has an exterior steel framework, much of which will be stripped away and rebuilt, and a concrete interior portion that can be salvaged.
Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.
then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight
Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
“Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.” NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii
originally posted by: _BoneZ_
If anyone really wants to know the truth about Judy Wood, they won't have to look very far.
Her credibility goes completely out the door once one takes a few minutes to watch the following video where she's interviewed by Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics. While watching her throughout the video, she appears unable to recall her own calculations, figures, or even the basics of her own "work"
originally posted by: SirDrinksalot
originally posted by: _BoneZ_
If anyone really wants to know the truth about Judy Wood, they won't have to look very far.
Her credibility goes completely out the door once one takes a few minutes to watch the following video where she's interviewed by Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics. While watching her throughout the video, she appears unable to recall her own calculations, figures, or even the basics of her own "work"
Is she drunk? I drink far too much and she sounds like me, i cant remember the names of stuff either and she cant remember much.
Plus she looks like a drunk, I dont look like I drink too much yet but she looks like she drinks.
Jesse Ventura rules though, climbing for cash...name that film!!
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: IroncladFT
Still pushing the able danger rewrite huh?
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: wmd_2008
I won't call the people at dubunking 911 liars, I will say that they seem to think every single comment the firefights made were either taken out of context or they weren't really describing what they saw, only what they think they saw, or calling them liars but with out actually doing so...
I think explosives started the collapse, not the failure of column 79 caused by never before seen thermal expansion.
NIST even decided to omit the grider and the stiffners.. Strange how that works out huh?
The top section of the building fell straight down when it was in free fall but after that it would be hard to classify it as "straight down", that feels like a trap phrase. I will say it fell almost in its own foot print .