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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Study concludes explosives used on 911

page: 29
130
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: RKWWWW

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: drderpinheimer


I am also a bit of a lurker as you are, and I would like to chime in regarding your comment.


I am personally aware, going back 7 or 8 years, of videos that were once on the internet (I viewed them many times) that became "no longer available" at some point in time.


And it so happens that each of those videos provided solid evidence that contradicted the official story in a major way.




Solid evidence isn't left to the vagaries of an internet host site. Here are some words you would never hear from a credible person who has evidence that one of the most important Building Performance Studies was faulty:

"Dammit! I had incontrovertible evidence that the NIST/FEMA study was flawed, but youtube took the video down"!


Many a NIST peer review that backs the NIST WTC work is not flawed.




posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Ugh.. i just read this page.
It's impossible to argue with belief systems.
Videos of steel are not evidence.
Although the actual steel would have been nice to look at.

Those videos show many welders w cutting torches
working feverishly (NOT at a rescue site) to cut steel down
for melting. What's the hurry ?
Destroying evidence is not normal investigating protocol.

How do 110 stories, 90+ which are perfectly
intact, hit the ground in 11 seconds because of Kerosene and People Magazines ?

Then the next building does the exact same thing ?
and does it EXACTLY like the first ? How ? why ?
Straight down through a path of progressively THICKER
steel and heavier concrete and not deviating to
the clean air of nonresistance 100 feet to the left right
forward or rear ?
Nope it wanted 500,000 tons to stay in it's lane.Cmon..
So many rules of Physics broken. Momentum, Conservation .

Then the 3rd building, never hit by an airplane, respected it's big sisters
so much, it fell in 8 seconds as tribute . This time skipping kerosene
and using only People Magazines computers and carpet as demolition .

Again UGH .. seriously ?
If Judy Wood or maybe Stephen Jones is on to something how
could we possibly know ? Evidence was destroyed .
And again those videos do not represent an investigation,
not in the least .

EVERY single separate site incident and action on 9/11 has
multiple "first time in history "anomalies.

For some however unless Snopes, NBC, PBS or Fox announces it,
it simply doesn't matter what MOUNTAIN of evidence we pull from.
(And there are truly mountains of scientific evidence at this point)

Doesn't anyone notice that all this ever mounting evidence stops
being looked at exactly the University and mainstream media level?
And when someone does finally take a look from those perches
and notice something is amiss
they quickly change their story right back or get fired.

A young man dies from an explosion in the
basement of 2WTC 1000 feet below and 3 seconds
BEFORE the FIRST plane hits. How does that work ?
Ask his Dad how he feels about the OS.
Through every twist and turn
science is on the side of Skeptics for 9/11.





edit on 24-10-2016 by UnderKingsPeak because: sp



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I ignore facts?

Please do tell how many explosives and cutting charges were used per floor per tower?

How is a classic looking controlled demolition carried out without audible sounds of charges setting off.

How did the system of top down floor by floor fizzle no flash charges survive the fires? Maintain functionality? Still perform precise timing?

When was the CD of a building over 50 floors ever achieved using cutting charges or explosives.

How was the never before controlled demolition of a 110 floor building, using a slow inconsistent fire damage system of fizzle no band charges, top down floor by floor detonation requiring percussion timing achieved twice in one day?



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

The WTC steel had inadequate insulation. That is proven by reports. The WTC only began upgrading the insulation as recommended at the time of 911.

The impact of the jets cut the fire water / sprinkler service to the floors and buildings that needed them the most.

How many buildings were hit and destroyed by falling tower debris?

The burning jet fuel resulted in a large and almost instantaneous fire the towers were not designed for. The building design was based on fires spreading at a slower rate indicative of a normal office fire.

The towers virtually had no concrete structure to help support the building's fire weekend structure. Historical, concrete cores have helped other buildings survive high-rise fires.

The fires, and lack of emergency systems, caused the improperly installed steel supporting the floors to heat up to the point the steel dropped. Upon cooling, the dropping floor supports contracted. This pulled the vertical columns in. This misaligned the vertical columns until they could not handle the vertical load and buckled or the floor connections to the vertical columns failed. Causing the top floors of the building to collapse. The falling mass met the first static floor with enough force to overcome the static floor's load rating for connections to the vertical columns. Then the process continued.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

A good thread

The pre-collapse inward bowing of WTC2
www.metabunk.org...



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

We're way past that point, look at the thread history my dear Sky-TV.



When the metallurgy and crystalline structure of the steel columns exhibited no characteristics of failure by demolitions / cutting charges.


When and if, sadly the clean up crew was faster. I've already told one of your last accounts that looking at exhibited steel columns isn't close to performing a hardness evaluation in a microstructural analysis.

NIST didn't find evidence for weakened steel due to office fires in said analysis, how did you manage to completely ignore that point? PR management doesn't care about facts, amirite?

You may tell us the thread title is disingenuous, but you don't really believe that yourself. Do you? Why didn't you debunk the alleged falsehoods then, didn't find any? Thought so, any further questions?



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Where did I say the steel failed due to fire?
The contraction of the cooling dropping steel place strain on the vertical columns that caused buckling and failed floor connections that caused the top of the towers to fall.

The points of failure are mechanical.

The videos of the pre collapse inward bowing of the steel columns at the point of collapse support the contracting of the steel.
edit on 24-10-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I like skeptics answer your questions. Yet, you ignore the questions asked to you.
edit on 24-10-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


When the movement Ignores the NIST WTC work was peer reviewed, and tries to put forth a false narrative.





Please provide proof that the NIST Report was Peer Reviewed?

FACT: NIST Report cannot be Peer Reviewed becaused it was already proven to be pseudoscience.

Look who is now peddling a false narrative now. This disingenuous game you are playing is very old and has been played out by very few ATS members that are no longer members on ATS.


Yet, you ignore the questions asked to you.


Pot calling kettle.

edit on 24-10-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Here is a link to a list of peer reviewed NIST material.

I provided it once. Sorry that you actually have to pay for the journal articles. Again, if you were serious about the truth, a trip to a college library should give you access.

Title: Compilation of Scientific Literature that Directly Cites to and Support's NIST's WTC 7 report's methodologies and conclusions

m.reddit.com...



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958



ascelibrary.org...

Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse

1Research Structural Engineer, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611 (corresponding author). E-mail: therese.mcallister@nist.gov
2Principal Engineer, Applied Research Associates, Mountain View, CA 94043.
3Senior Project Manager, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., Waltham, MA 02453.
4Senior Staff, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., Waltham, MA 02453.
5Senior Principal, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., Waltham, MA 02453.
6Principal Engineer, Applied Research Associates, Mountain View, CA 94043.
7Research Structural Engineer, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8611.
Journal of Structural Engineering

Vol. 138: Issue. 1: Pages. 109-117
(Issue publication date: January 2012)

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000398

This paper presents the structural analysis approach used and results obtained during the investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to model the sequence of fire-induced damage and failures leading to the global collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7).




posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux


You say NIST doesn't use peer review? Prove that different subjects of the NIST reports were never peer reviewed nor published in journals......

Who has time to go to college libraries to research scholarly journals when the pseudoscience of the movement's YouTube videos doesn't interfere with a person's world views.





From NIST

AT: www.nist.gov...

14. How did NIST derive the temperatures in the WTC towers and how valid are they?
Using all the visual and physical evidence available, NIST conducted simulations of the fires in each of the towers from the time of airplane impact to the collapses. The computational model used to simulate the fires was NIST's Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). This model had been validated in numerous experiments and fire recreations prior to the NIST WTC investigation. Additional large-scale experiments conducted during the investigation (NIST NCSTAR 1-5) provided further assurance of the validity of the model output. This output was in the form of maps of the air temperatures on each of the floors over the duration of the fires (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5F).
In a following set of computations, the evolving temperatures of the concrete and steel structural components of the towers were calculated by exposing them to the mapped air temperatures (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5G).
Both sets of computations are based on the fundamental laws of combustion, heat transfer, and air flow. The methods have been documented extensively and have been successfully subjected to technical peer review and published in professional journals.


Here is a repost of a NIST listing of their materials peer reviewed and published in journals.


Edit.

The quote didn't carry over from my previous comment. Here is the link again.

tf.nist.gov...



The NIST Time and Frequency publication database allows you to freely access a total of 2852 publications, a comprehensive body of scientific literature that covers the period from 1914 to the present. The database includes conference papers, journal and magazine articles, government publications, books, and book chapters. We have tried to include every time and frequency related publication authored by NIST personnel (or by the personnel of its predecessor, NBS, the National Bureau of Standards) in this database. If you know of any NIST or NBS publication that is related to time and frequency and that isn't included, please let us know by sending an email. We'll research your request and add the missing publication to the database as quickly as possible.

You can search for publications by entering at least one search term in the submission form below, and then clicking the submit button. You only need to enter partial terms, such as the author's last name. Words can be entered as either upper or lower case. Multiple words entered on the same line are treated as if "AND" were between them, which narrows your search. After you click the submit button, a list of publications will be displayed. If a publication is available as a PDF file, the title will be underlined. Simply click on the title to access the publication. If you are interested in time and frequency but don't know what to search for, please visit our list of selected general interest time and frequency publications.


A little more research in scholarly material, and less on YouTube material published with no accountability other than likes and advertising, might widen your world views.
edit on 24-10-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


TECHNICAL PAPERS
Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse



ascelibrary.org...

Fact, This paper is not a Peer Reviewed Report.

Fact, this is just a Technical Paper. Seriously!



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

It's one example of a PUBLISHED NIST subject. And it doesn't start with "this subject matter is a departure from our normal content. it contains speculation."

Sorry a studious person on Reddit went to the trouble of listing published and peer reviewed NIST work relating to the WTC.

So stop with the NIST work is not peer reviewed. NIST provides a page to find their Published works. The NIST WTC 1 and 2 question and answer page directly answers the NIST temperature studies at the WTC are backed by peer review. A person on Reddit gives direct links to NIST peer reviewed WTC material. Others also have pointed this out to you. it's kinda sad to push a false narrative.
edit on 24-10-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux


TECHNICAL PAPERS
Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse



ascelibrary.org...

Fact, This paper is not a Peer Reviewed Report.

Fact, this is just a Technical Paper. Seriously!


Of course it was peer reviewed. It was a published paper in a peer reviewed journal. By definition, it's a peer reviewed study. Do you not understand the peer review process?



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Where did I say the steel failed due to fire?
The contraction of the cooling dropping steel place strain on the vertical columns that caused buckling and failed floor connections that caused the top of the towers to fall.

The points of failure are mechanical.

The videos of the pre collapse inward bowing of the steel columns at the point of collapse support the contracting of the steel.


And what exactly caused the steel to drop, did you just remember the melted steel issue? In that case I'd like to apologise.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Now you think steel has to melt to be formed? How does a blacksmith bend horse shoes? How does a wire machine draw steel into individual cable strains?

Now, hot metal does not expand? Why does steel piping need expansion loops.

The heated floor beams heated up and tried to expand. The heated individual beams were not as resistance to the vertical columns to straight. The heated floor beams made there own expansion loop because they could not push the vertical columns out. They bowed downward as they became / were more flexible than the vertical columns. Having the load of the floor on the top side of the beams encouraged the beams to bow downward.


edit on 25-10-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-10-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Nist didn't find any evidence for structural weakening, it's just another lousy theory like the Toldya(TM). The study in our OP has more evidence to offer, I don't get why you would prefer to speculate instead. Ah wait... I actually do.



Agreed to disagree.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Where did I say the structure weekend. I just said metal expands when heated. Is that false?

The ends of the beams could not expand out, so they bowed downward?



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: neutronflux

Nist didn't find any evidence for structural weakening, it's just another lousy theory like the Toldya(TM).







edit on 25-10-2016 by RKWWWW because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
130
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join