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.
LT :Most of you will, by now, ask yourself what all this antimatter stuff has to do...etc.
hellobruce : Absolutely nothing, as there is zero evidence for beam weapons, thermite, mini silent nuclear weapons etc at the WTC.
Victims of the military-industrial complex "patriotic" propaganda that has grown so powerful these days, it can only be stopped by some miracle, like a dollar-collapse, or defeat by an honest enemy, further in the development of even more heinous weapons of mass destruction.
My hopes on that are not particular high.
It's better to keep exposing the lies, misconceptions and propaganda pieces.
In the hope of an awakening of the voting masses. (Voting is probably already globally rigged for decades now)
A lot of excremental stuff is brewing lately, and in the process of deteriorating into a chaotic, unpredictable and unmanageable anymore, outcome....
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: PLAYERONE01
There are two types, those who post pages of stuff that are always missing the common sense items or all the details, that destroy their theories. Then, there are those who just post personal attacks.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, -snip-
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because :
(1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and
(2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns.
This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.
Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab ; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
originally posted by: LaBTop
totally wrong, as proven by me,
without any solid evidence
Charles M. Beck proved mathematically
Quote: The load-bearing vertical columns begin to fail one by one, each at location near the source of damage. When the remaining columns cannot carry their load any more, the building is set in motion. However, as the building starts to move the remaining columns continue to offer resistance before their eventual failure. It is important to observe that as a result the acceleration of the building is initially fairly small, but then starts to increases as more and more columns fail. With the failure of last of the remaining columns the top section achieves a near-free fall acceleration. The free fall lasts until the top section reaches the ground when it starts to decelerate. No citation or line of reasoning advanced to support this assertion. More tellingly, there is no estimate given of the duration of the increase in acceleration to near freefall; in particular, whether it would be detectable over the timescale of the available measurements. Since columns would be expected to have negligible resistance after a total shortening of a few per cent, I would suspect that this initial period of low acceleration would be so brief as to be undetectable. Beck states that the near-freefall acceleration is achieved after 0.7m of drop; that hardly seems surprising, as this is about 17% of the height of a single storey. Beck is trying to dance around his own analysis by refusing to quantify it. It's that good old unevaluated inequality fallacy again, a great favourite of the truth movement. Quote: Well defined failure point and initial free-fall acceleration of the top section both indicate that the collapse of WTC 7 was not spontaneous. Again, an assertion unsupported by any citation or line of reasoning. The flaw in Beck's analysis is that he's assuming that the collapse of WTC7 commenced with the movement of the roof line, and neglecting the prior fall of the mechanical penthouse. He's then deducing that something must have destroyed or severely damaged the core columns. Could that, perhaps, have been caused by having a large structure collapse through them? This isn't a possibility that Beck seems to consider. And even after all this careful misdirection, Beck can't come up with anything. He's forced to admit that Bazant and Verdure's crush-up model is an equally good description of the collapse as his own vague generalisations about damage to 50% of the columns. Even that is based on his own unpublished work on the Twin Towers collapses, which uses a gross overestimate of the column dimensions - Beck assumed that the ground level column dimensions were continued all the way to the roof - followed by an assumption that WTC7 was built to the same strength. Overall, a nice try to slip some truthiness into a serious paper, but this is poor reasoning that falls far short of supporting the conclusion it's designed to support; as a result Beck has backed off from actually stating the conclusion he'd like to. He's working very cleverly, though, as a stealth truther, and if he goes on like this he may slip something past a group of peer reviewers who are having an off day.
hellobruce : Except you have proven no such thing, it is all in your mind!
LT :without any solid evidence.
hellobruce : Very true, you have no solid evidence at all, just nonsense about mini nuclear bombs going off at the WTC's!
LT : Charles M. Beck proved mathematically....etc.
hellobruce : He has not actually!
This 1975 fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and the trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.
It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage in this fire. In particular, none of the trusses needed to be replaced.
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: LaBTop. And this last post is an example of my earlier point. You ignore pertinent facts about the 1975 fire. 1. No high speed airliner slamming into the building and, 2. The 1975 fire in the North Tower, was confined to the section of the building that had the much more durable asbestos based fireproofing that was discontinued after the 30th or so floor and not used in the South Tower.
Once the Saudis found out the location for trillions of dollars being sponged through insider trading info gained from the stock market,