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 sp00n1
Ive done plenty of research buddy! And i never said NIST said the steel melted!! DONT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!
The NIST's own models failed to collapse. They used non-fireproofed steel, applied a massive gravity load, used fires twice as hot for twice as long, and estimated some large number of severed columns.
Yet, NO COLLAPSE!
[edit on 3/2/2007 by sp00n1]
Originally posted by CameronFox
I suggest YOU do some research as well. NIST never claimed that steel was melted. NIST actually stated that the collapse was initiated for 3 reasons.
1- Severe damage to a building due to an airliner flying into it
2- Fires
3- The removal of fire proofing material casued my plane impact
Removing any one of the three could possibly result in the building not collapsing. ie: fire alone ..fireproofing surviving impact. etc.
Originally posted by sp00n1
Ive done plenty of research buddy! And i never said NIST said the steel melted!! DONT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!
The NIST's own models failed to collapse. They used non-fireproofed steel, applied a massive gravity load, used fires twice as hot for twice as long, and estimated some large number of severed columns.
Yet, NO COLLAPSE!
I love how they all reference the NIST report but none of them seem to have read one single word. The NIST report actually contradicts most of the claims OCT's contribute to it.
(NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 176)
(1) structural damage due to impact, and (b) the damage to insulation caused by the impact. NIST say: “In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower.”
quoted “To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted...
Originally posted by Reap
I think you'll find that steel loses 2 thirds of its tensile strength at about 500 c more that enough to cause collape
quoted “To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted...
Originally posted by sp00n1
Making stuff up, and outright lying about things that are all too easy to research, doesnt do any good for your side.
[edit on 3/2/2007 by sp00n1]
Originally posted by sp00n1
Computer MODELS!! Where they could have done anything, because they dont tell anybody what they did to their "simulation".
All of their real-world models failed to collapse, even under ridiculous conditions. CASE CLOSED.
Originally posted by sp00n1
Funny, an OCT is caught making stuff up, and you blame the CT's???
[edit on 3/2/2007 by sp00n1]