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.

 

Police "pulled" WTC 7 ?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

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.


Source; 911research.wtc7.net...




Ah, yes. When all else fails, clam that the picture has been “Photshopped.”

Where would CT’s be without Photoshop?





posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   

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.


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.



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.


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?



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   

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.


What's your point?

I'm asking you to show me enough buckling, on any given floor, to justify the total collapse of that floor.


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?


No, because you're spinning the problem.

NIST tries to show buckling before the collapses. This is what I want you to do, too, because NIST has failed to show a sufficient amount of buckling.

If you cannot show sufficient buckling BEFORE the collapses, but merely AFTER the collapses have already started, then you're not showing anything. Of COURSE structural aspects are going to fail AFTER the collapse begins. That does absolutely nothing to prove your theory on why the collapses began in the first place.


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?


If the damage was shown to have not been there earlier? Then yes, it would logically have come after the impacts.

Now (1) provide a conclusive link between the buckling and sagging trusses, and (2) (more importantly) show enough buckling to justify the collapse of a whole floor.

Again, showing buckling AFTER the collapse has started is not establishing the CAUSE of the collapse initiation.



Edit: I should clarify a little. When I ask for sufficient buckling, this is where I'm coming from:

I'm not asking for you to show the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, before the collapse started. Again, NIST shows a very small number of buckled columns for any given floor. Any given floor could also have withstood the total removal of over half of its columns before completely collapsing, as per building codes that the buildings met (working backwards from floors being able to support over 2x the loads they were actually expected to take on a daily basis, max, and redistribution, plus safety factor ratings for the support columns given by NIST). So we should have seen much more than half of the perimeter columns only buckled on any given floor, if that's really what caused collapse.

What you're suggesting seems to require that very, very few columns were buckled on any given floor, and then -- all of a sudden! -- a very large amount of them failed within such a short amount of time, all together, that the floors began falling symmetrically. How is this suggestive of a natural collapse, over a controlled demolition?

[edit on 31-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
The building was damaged by lots of debris, well after the initial plane hits. Here is a great picture of it. That is quite a shower going on there!





new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join