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.
originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: neutronflux
No... you're exactly right... everything all the "official" stories say are 100% fact, in all conspiracies. The government/s have never done anything nefarious.
Oh...and I absolutely buy everything the Truth Movement says, because that's exactly what I said in my post... that's not a jump of logic on your part at all, and it's great that you make such huge assumptions about what other people think, because you're always 100% accurate (just like the official stories) and contribute your great comprehension skills to a discourse.
I think we should all stop speculating about all potential conspiracies because a few whack-jobs went overboard with their particular theories, and take a page from your book and accept our lot as peons under the all knowledgeable and all truthful powers-that-be, even when there is a mountain of coincidences and logical discrepancies that suggest not everything may be as it seems.
For 2.5 second s of the collapse.... That just screams “moving the goal post”..
Truthers say “all the buildings fell at freefall”
Truthers come back with “well fir 2.5 seconds building 7 did.”..
You going to define natural collapse for a steel structure?
Able to cite that scientific law that states it is impossible for a mostly hollow building to collapse at the rate of free fall.
Still going to ignore that WTC 7 only achieved the rate of free fall in the middle of the collapse. Not at the start, and not at the final duration of collapse.
Going to cite how WTC 7 looked like a classic collapse.
Going to explain how a CD system survive building damage and fires?
What type of charges are you going with, and have proof of. Fizzle no flash, thermite, or rebar covered in C-4. Or you a Dustification kinda person?
By: Mick West
I wanted to convey that the initiating event was not a single girder walk off. There's several simultaneous initiating events around C79, none of which were girder walk-offs. But it was hard to show that in the podcast, so I pointed to the other area to show that more than one thing was going on. I should probably had focussed more on the multiple beam and girder failures that actually led to the collapse (in that simulation)
By Mick West
The problem here is that it does not make sense to people. Even if the columns buckled, wouldn't they still provide some resistance? Well yes, but the key question here is how much resistance. If they provide a force equal to the mass they support times g, then the mass they support will not move. If they provide a force equal to 1% of the mass times g, then the mass will move down with an acceleration of 99% of g (i.e. negligible resistance, and essentially free fall).
Columns of a building can support a static load of a low multiple of the mass above them before failing. Conservatively you can use 2x. So put very simply if the support of a column was to be reduced so that the mass it previously supported were to fall at 99% of g, then the supporting strength of the column would have to be reduced by a factor of 200.
And this happens when a tall column or wall loses its support and buckles.
Notice is does not mean zero support. If a column could support 1000 tons, and it's degraded by a factor of 200 then than means it can still support 5 tons. However while the column is buckling the 1000 tons it was supporting will fall at an acceleration of 99% of g.
Each of the the NIST, Arup, and WAI studies were conducted by multiple PhDs with expertise in forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science, and the NIST WTC7 report was also independently peer reviewed by the Journal of Structural Engineering (whose editors and peer reviewers have similar levels of expertise), while not a single expert on forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science worked on Hulsey's study.
originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: neutronflux
What are you talking about,there were explosions on all the main support members,the building was set up for demolition in 99,use fact instead of theory,makes more sense
EVERYONE used to say that both towersAND 7 fell at free fall..
Have you actually established that it fell for freefall AT ALL
So? To keep your faith in CD you have to remain totally ignorant on the subject?
how a CD system survive building damage and fires?