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.

 

Pictures show collapse of WTC towers was structural, not demoliton

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   
wtc.nist.gov...
Page 96

You can see the floors of the WTC have already begun to fall. This goes to show, along with eyewitness accounts of people trapped in the WTC who called relatives, that the building was starting to collapse, and the inner structure of the towers were failing.

If the support for those floors is failing, and you can see the buckling of the outside clomns here

wtc.nist.gov...
Page 95 and page 100

This is showing structural collapse, right?

Now, take a look at this picture 6 minutes before collapse, the tower is essentialy cut in half.

wtc.nist.gov...
Page 109 and 110

Look at the inward bowing of WTC 2 here

wtc.nist.gov...
Page 112

Now, look at page 115, and look how the tower is leaning and sliding into the collapse, not coming down upon itself like a demolition.

wtc.nist.gov...
Page 115-117

It is showing strutural collapse again.

Then starting with page 122, there are numerous pictures of twisted and contorted steel that played into the collpase.

The NIST report pictures show that the structural integrity of the building is failing, from the inside out. It is suprising that many of these pitures never appear, however the video of free fall collaspe is the truth for 9/11 bible.

There is no evidence of explosives. You can see that they have steel members from where the collapse originates, and there is no trace residue. You can see the buckling of the supports that led to the collapse.




posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   
It would have been sufficient to link to the NIST report once. I'll get back to you on your pictures soon....the report is still loading.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Still reading, but from the report we get this:


6.6.2 Core Columns Exposed to Fire
Four of the core columns with known as-built locations were examined for mud cracking of the paint.
For columns C-88a and C-88b, sufficient paint for analysis was not available. For columns HH and C-80,
few areas of paint were observed (three to five spots per column) with no indication of temperatures over
250 °C. Note that these core columns represent less than 1 percent of the core columns on floors involved
with fire and cannot be considered representative of any other core columns.


Sorce: esdad has enough links, so I really don't nead to link it again.

hmmm....no indication of temperatures over 250C. But, yes, it represents 1% of the core columns. Why then didn't they test more? Because, the real evidence was shipped to China.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I am trying to show the strutural failure of the WTC with pictures you will not find on many sites. This is not about the fires, although please prove away.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   
esdad71

If you are right then why does the government not close this case.

Show all the evidence (videos from pentagon)

Get an REAL investigation without government interference

I thing that would convince people and the families who lost a member of

the family could also continue their lives



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I am trying to show the strutural failure of the WTC with pictures you will not find on many sites. This is not about the fires, although please prove away.



But, it was because of the fires that they say everything was failing. So, we can't discuss the fires that lead to the structural collapse? What do you want me to prove? NIST already proved that the steel did not get hot enough to lose structural integrity, so why do I need to prove anything?



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I am trying to show the strutural failure of the WTC with pictures you will not find on many sites. This is not about the fires, although please prove away.



I suggest you to not stick on papers and analysis some others have done or missed to do. You will never get a satsifying answere that way.
Do your own analysis. Focus on the physics of the collaps itself.
How exactly would such a building collaps with a structural damge on a few floors? How would it looks like? How much and what would be left? Calculate it. When you have done it..does this match with what you have seen? It requires some skills right, but it's worth to do it once for yourself if you really want to know the answer.
It's the work the official should have done and left out.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jensen
esdad71

If you are right then why does the government not close this case.

Show all the evidence (videos from pentagon)

Get an REAL investigation without government interference

I thing that would convince people and the families who lost a member of

the family could also continue their lives


Huh, I dont understand. Where at any point in time did esdad71 mention the Pentagon ? its a separate incident, his post was purely relating to the pictures contained in the report and their ability to prove or disprove the theory that structural collapse was what actually happened.

What would you suggest would constitute a real investigation? which organisation are you going to suggest investigates the largest crime perpetrated in this century? And who, if not the Government, will pay for it ?



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
The chances of those buildings being dropped like they wereby being hit by two airliners ,I think you would have better odds winning the Lotto or Power Ball,virtually impossible,this is from a person who did demolition as well as construction



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Because this arguement always goes to 'melted steel' and it was not hot enough to cause the structural failure. Not alone, but the picutres show the damage, and it was only a matter of time before it collapsed. I want people to comment on the pictures that i have posted, and if they show structural collapse or not.

Did any of you ever see the towers prior to collaspe? I did, a few times, and I especially remember going with my Dad and bieng in awe.

Pictures do not give the scope of the tragedy justice, it does not. This was not a 30 story building, it was over 100. That is alot of stress on the inner columns, along with the outer, to suspended the floors after the initial strike. In the pictures you can see the buckling, and it is bowing inward.

I am trying to show pictures that are rarely shown about this subject and how the WTC was almost cut in half in the one picture.


Also, I have read everything from Rense to prisonplanet to FEMA to NIST. I ahve also read a couple of other books that explained some of the 'explosions that were heard' and some of the comments that have been used out of context on certain sites. 102 minutes is one I suggest about the survivors who were in the towers and worked them for those 102 minutes before collapse.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I have NISTNCSTAR1-6, which i believe is the finished report, not the half daft draft version you are mentioning.
I won't be downloading the draft version simply to answer your question, maybe you could get the proper full version and correct your original question.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
I want people to comment on the pictures that i have posted, and if they show structural collapse or not.


Yeah, obviously, but not nearly enough to initiate a collapse. Just any damage will not make a freaking building globally collape. It takes a certain amount of damage -- and any damage should be compared to this required amount. NIST doesn't do that here, even though they have offered the info required to determine what would've been needed for a collapse to initiate. I wonder why they slack off so badly here?


NIST has released figures for determining the safety factor ratings and etc. and it comes out that each floor in the top of a tower would need to lose about 75% of its columns before that floor would no longer be able to support all of its load and fail. This is because the tower was over-engineered, just like every other steel skyscraper on the face of the planet. That 75% includes perimeter AND core columns, and buckled columns don't even lose all of their ability to support weight.

So you're going to have to show us a lot worse than those pics. You're going to have to find pre-collapse photos showing damage covering all of at least 3 sides of a building, etc., assuming an equivalent amount of core damage (of which there is absolutely no evidence). But it doesn't matter because not even one whole side of a building was knocked up like that in the affected regions.

NIST has just zoomed in on some damaged regions and slyly suggested that these were sufficient for causing a whole floor to collapse without showing any other damage (the damage that would've been required), or referencing other figures they've released. And guess who bought this without so much as a second thought about any of it?


Because this arguement always goes to 'melted steel' and it was not hot enough to cause the structural failure.


Uh, no it doesn't?

No one's been seriously claiming that the steel would've had to have been melted for years (and even then, it was people on the side of the "official story" suggesting melted steel!). You just keep using straw men. It's annoying. You constantly bring up stuff that no one's talking about, and constantly put words in our mouths.

Show us proof that ENOUGH of the steel WAS sufficiently heated. That's all you have to do.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
From page 117..

Figure 6–21. Northeast corner of WTC 2, several seconds before collapse. The corner
shows no distortion of the type in the previous figure, implying that the distortion
accompanied the collapse and did not precede it.

So....NIST admits that there was no distortion prior to the collapse?



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Good find Zorch. So, NIST even says that there was no buckling prior to collapse at least in that area. I'll have to look closer into this.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jensen
esdad71

If you are right then why does the government not close this case.

Show all the evidence (videos from pentagon)

Get an REAL investigation without government interference

I thing that would convince people and the families who lost a member of

the family could also continue their lives





Then the truth would come out and people that work in the military industrial complex would not have their high paying jobs... while I am at it, do certain people that often post here work in the industry?



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Esdad, I have linked to many of all of those pictures before.













And so on, and so on. . . .



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Good find Zorch. So, NIST even says that there was no buckling prior to collapse at least in that area. I'll have to look closer into this.


It's a circular argument from NIST.

There wasn't sufficient buckling, and then when WTC2 starts to lean, for example, suddenly there is, obviously, because the building is beginning to tilt. By this point, of course, you could say that collapse has already initiated, so it's a pretty ridiculous argument. But, at least as Howard interprets it and spews it across the boards, it's that the sudden appearance of sufficient buckling upon collapse is somehow proof that buckling was the cause of the collapse.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join