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: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander
Long ago it was disclosed that there was a business jet in the area that was asked to do a flyover of the area. Again, just a wee bit of honest research.....
originally posted by: Salander
I DO have a problem with UA93 crashing in that field, because there is no evidence that it crashed there.
originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: turbonium1
But when people produce evidence of crash-tests that support the official version of the collapse, you dismiss them by claiming it wasn't the same aircraft or the same structure. So I'm not sure why (read: I don't believe you when) you claim that you would be satisfied by a scale-model re-enactment.
It seems that nothing short of rebuilding the WTC towers and then crashing two 767s into them would fulfil the requirements you're setting out.
Also, if one were so inclined, one could point out that the collapse of the second tower provided a good demonstration of the cause of the collapse of the first. There, you have two more or less identical events with more or less identical results. But I imagine, correct me if I'm wrong, that the collapse of the second tower is read by you as confirmation that the collapse of the first was somehow impossible.
originally posted by: Salander
originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander
Long ago it was disclosed that there was a business jet in the area that was asked to do a flyover of the area. Again, just a wee bit of honest research.....
Long ago it was disclosed, NOT by the mainstream media, that the FBI asked Miller to "be a team player", and he agreed, and changed his story 180 degrees.
What's your point? I have no problems with there being a Falcon in the area.
I DO have a problem with UA93 crashing in that field, because there is no evidence that it crashed there.
Is Much of the World Trade Center Missing?
Some conspiracy theorists claim that large amounts of the buildings were unaccounted for by the size of the rubble pile. Since only 12% of the building volume was solid, the towers should collapse into a pile 12% of the original height of the building, or just about 50 meters high. Since 18 meters of that pile would be filling the basement, the above-ground portion would be 32 meters high.
The actual rubble pile reached the fifth story of adjacent buildings, so well outside the footprint of the tower the pile was five stories, or about 15 meters high. The pile would have been roughly conical, and would have included a lot of void space, increasing its height and offsetting the larger diameter of the pile. Overall the rubble pile is what you'd expect.
So it simply isn't true that the rubble pile is only a small percentage of what would be expected. Some conspiracy sites allege that the rubble pile is only 5% of what would be expected. Others use a figure of 33% as the height of a rubble pile relative to the original building and then argue that the pile should have been 140 or so meters high. But when Controlled Demolition Inc. (www.controlled-demolition.com...) dropped a 23-story, 439-foot (134 m) building in Detroit in 1997, they ended up with a pile averaging 35 feet high (11 m) and a maximum of 60 feet (18 m) high. The rubble pile was an average of 8% of the height of the original building and a maximum of 14%. Scaling that up to the World Trade Center, we get heights of 33 to 58 meters. In other words, the rubble pile at the World Trade Center is totally in line with other large building collapses. 33% may work for a small building a few stories high, but a large building will compress the debris pile a lot more and also fill void spaces more effectively with pulverized debris.
originally posted by: Salander
What is certain is that 93 did not crash in that field. What is certain is that, just as Miller and the photos showed, NO airliner crashed in that field.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1
If the buildings turned to dust, then why was heavy equipment and thermal lances used to cut and break the WTC ruble into manageable loads for dump trucks. Apply a little common sense and stop only "researching" conspiracy sites that more or less lie.
Note: after thought. If the towers were turned to dust, how did their collapse damage other buildings. Stop pushing false talking points.
Nutty 9-11 Physics
www.uwgb.edu...
Really Nutty 9-11 Physics
www.uwgb.edu...
Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
www.uwgb.edu...
Is Much of the World Trade Center Missing?
Some conspiracy theorists claim that large amounts of the buildings were unaccounted for by the size of the rubble pile. Since only 12% of the building volume was solid, the towers should collapse into a pile 12% of the original height of the building, or just about 50 meters high. Since 18 meters of that pile would be filling the basement, the above-ground portion would be 32 meters high.
The actual rubble pile reached the fifth story of adjacent buildings, so well outside the footprint of the tower the pile was five stories, or about 15 meters high. The pile would have been roughly conical, and would have included a lot of void space, increasing its height and offsetting the larger diameter of the pile. Overall the rubble pile is what you'd expect.
So it simply isn't true that the rubble pile is only a small percentage of what would be expected. Some conspiracy sites allege that the rubble pile is only 5% of what would be expected. Others use a figure of 33% as the height of a rubble pile relative to the original building and then argue that the pile should have been 140 or so meters high. But when Controlled Demolition Inc. (www.controlled-demolition.com...) dropped a 23-story, 439-foot (134 m) building in Detroit in 1997, they ended up with a pile averaging 35 feet high (11 m) and a maximum of 60 feet (18 m) high. The rubble pile was an average of 8% of the height of the original building and a maximum of 14%. Scaling that up to the World Trade Center, we get heights of 33 to 58 meters. In other words, the rubble pile at the World Trade Center is totally in line with other large building collapses. 33% may work for a small building a few stories high, but a large building will compress the debris pile a lot more and also fill void spaces more effectively with pulverized debris.
A kiloton is 4.2 x 1012 joules, so the gravitational potential energy is about a quarter of a kiloton or 280 tons of high explosive, per tower.
originally posted by: turbonium1
They never spoke of the collapse itself,
Immediately after collapse initiation, the potential energy of the structure (physical mass of the tower) above the impact floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to 85th in WTC 2) was released, developing substantial kinetic energy. The impact of this rapidly accelerating mass on the floors directly below led to overloading and subsequent failure of these floors. The additional mass of the failed floors joined that of the tower mass from above the impact area, adding to the kinetic energy impinging on the subsequent floors. The failure of successive floors was apparent in images and videos of the towers’ collapse by the compressed air expelled outward as each floor failed and fell down onto the next. This mechanism appears to have continued until dust and debris obscured the view of the col- lapsing towers.
As the composite floor decking was most likely quite rigid due to the continuous concrete floor, the transverse bridging trusses, and the intermediate deck support angles, failure of the floor as a whole would be expected at the connections attaching the floor to the exterior wall and core.
Reality: Indeed first responders saw nothing that resembled a plane, because, really, there was nothing that resembled a plane. According to the black boxes, the skyjackers had put the 757 into a near vertical dive at maximum power. Similar to the case of American 77, the jet disintegrated in a manner totally consistent with an ultra-high speed, direct-impact crash. For the sake of comparison, have a look at the debris field from the crash of American Eagle flight 4184 near Roselawn, Indiana, in 1994. This was a commuter plane that dove into soft earth at half the speed of United 93, yet only the tiniest pieces remained. When PSA flight 1771 crashed in California in 1987, hitting the ground in a similar high-speed nose-dive, the largest remaining pieces were described as “the size of a human hand.” Tom McMillan’s excellent book, “Flight 93,” chronicles the Shanksville crash and subsequent recovery efforts in great detail. The trees surrounding the impact crater were full of bits of luggage and human remains, much of it caught up in branches. Plenty of aircraft debris was later excavated from the crater itself.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1
Quote who said the towers were designed to survive multiple large jet impacts? Is that at the same time?
originally posted by: turbonium1
The only problem is that, as said above, there WERE no core columns that failed from fire/impact damage, and NIST knows that. So what they do is assume that there WERE such failed core columns, but they weren't found in the debris! And THAT was how they were able to create models of collapse by fire and impact damage.
Imaginary core columns all failed at once, and initiated the entire collapse.
Specifically designed to withstand a large plane, and claimed by the on-site construction manager that it could withstand multiple plane impacts, as he explains below. The quote links to the video, on the source page...
originally posted by: neutronflux
You never worked with drywall,ceiling tiles, nor cut concrete?
You are baffled by a building containing 200,000 tons of steel, floor after floor of drywall, and concrete that ground together with the force of 280 tons of explosives creating dust as it was a mystery.
Dust is created by a mechanical means. Rod mills, ball mills, grinding, cutting, sanding.....
What are you trying to say created the dust if it was not the mechanical grinding by the millions of collisions of steel, concrete, drywall, insulation, fireproofing, and ceiling tiles during collapse.