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 ANOK
In addition, it cannot be determined beyond speculation that the steel columns were "bowed" and not be an aberration, such as optical distortion from fire and heat, from picture enhancement, or from the aluminum facade covering the columns.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Again, I will post the same challenge to HowardRoark:
Show us sufficient buckling to justify the initiation of collapse on a single floor.
Buckling allegedly compromised a lot of structural integrity. Enough to make a whole floor give way, support columns and all, and fall straight down. For buckling to cause such a monstrous failure, there would have to be a very large number of buckled perimeter columns on any given floor.
NIST shows a small handful per floor at best per floor, and this is even in regards to the photos that are dubious in their portrayal of heat-related sagging or etc., which NIST never properly (scientifically) links to the buckling in the first place.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
The buckling itself is an indication that the internal floors at that location have lost their structural integrity. Whether they had actually collapsed onto the floor below or were merely sagging is immaterial as they had lost their ability to resist the inward horizontal motion of the exterior wall.
Let me get this straight. You want me to show you a picture of a sufficient percentage of the exterior wall buckled inward to cause the building to collapse while the building was still standing, even though when such a condition was present, the building would be collapsing.
That’s a bit of a contradiction, isn’t it?
Let me come back at you with this question:
If the buckling was not present in the photographs taken earlier, then it must have occurred at some point well after the impact. Do you agree?