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.

 

9/11 simulations

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   


There is absolutely no proof at all that the plane ripped of fireproofing from the steel.
If an air conditioner can rip the fireproofing off I think a huge airplane can



Out of context? If there had been raging fires inside the number of floors believe me the firefighters would have felt not only the 1000 Degree's temperature that NIST claims but have seen alot more fires than "ISOLATED" ones.
Your orginal claim that " there were only a few pockets of small fires which they could take out in 2 lines" is taken completely out of context bezerk



“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181
and how many samples did they collect? Over 200





All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143
In Addition in the scaling issue raised by the test results, the fire in the towers on the september 11, and the resulting exposure of floor sysyems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces.

About wtc 7 read this link
www.popularmechanics.com...




Also please watch the video i posted above to get further clarification that fire did not weaken the steels for collapse initiation.

I have but you have not looked at any of my links I posted or you would know that it was Purdue University researchers that made the computer model and not nist.

Have a nice day






[edit on 7-7-2007 by youngskeptic]




posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by youngskeptic


There is absolutely no proof at all that the plane ripped of fireproofing from the steel.
If an air conditioner can rip the fireproofing off I think a huge airplane can

I wouldn't say a huge airplane, compared to a large building like the WTC there's no competition. Also, I could see it ripping off where the impact zones were however, I just don't see it blowing it off where the structure wasn't hit. Its like the movie myth where a person is shot and they fly off their feet. Obviously this doesn't happen, but what your telling me is that a plane 767 and a huge structure like the WTC colliding would rip off the fireproofing thorugh the entire building. That would take a lot of force to do, you would need a large number of aircraft to do that.




Out of context? If there had been raging fires inside the number of floors believe me the firefighters would have felt not only the 1000 Degree's temperature that NIST claims but have seen alot more fires than "ISOLATED" ones.
Your orginal claim that " there were only a few pockets of small fires which they could take out in 2 lines" is taken completely out of context bezerk

Yeah, I could see that be manipulating and cherry picking evidence, however have you seen photos where a bellow of smoke is coming off the WTC's?
This is sign of an oxygen starved fire. This is just one photograph.




“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181
and how many samples did they collect? Over 200

200 pieces is not much to go on considering there were thousands and thousand of pieces of metal all over the place. You would think they would go over it with a fine tooth comb before ground zero's material was shipped away. I expected people from NIST to investigate the site itself instead of getting 2nd hand accounts afterward.



All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143
In Addition in the scaling issue raised by the test results, the fire in the towers on the september 11, and the resulting exposure of floor sysyems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces.

About wtc 7 read this link
www.popularmechanics.com...
I wouldn't put out what popular mechanics says, they are not the ultimate authority on structural engineering, NIST report is highly recommended to cite.




Also please watch the video i posted above to get further clarification that fire did not weaken the steels for collapse initiation.

I have but you have not looked at any of my links I posted or you would know that it was Purdue University researchers that made the computer model and not nist.

Well, the problem with a computer simulation is that a computer doesn't tell the truth, its whatever you program it to do. Its garbage in and garbage out.


Have a nice day






[edit on 7-7-2007 by youngskeptic]


[edit on 7/7/2007 by grassyknoll7]

[edit on 7/7/2007 by grassyknoll7]

[edit on 7/7/2007 by grassyknoll7]

[edit on 7/7/2007 by grassyknoll7]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by youngskeptic
If an air conditioner can rip the fireproofing off I think a huge airplane can


Even if the fireproofing was ripped off, still does not explain how levels below the impact suddenly failed.


Your orginal claim that " there were only a few pockets of small fires which they could take out in 2 lines" is taken completely out of context bezerk


I'm telling you that if fires did reach, according to your claims, 1000 degrees to weaken the steel, then the firefighters should not have been at the level they were. Also the fact that the lady in the impact hole should not be alive due to excessive heat. It would be like walking into an oven.



and how many samples did they collect? Over 200


Maybe so, but only 3 samples reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees. That is way too low to weaken steel. So what does that say to your claims of steel weakening?



All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143



In Addition in the scaling issue raised by the test results, the fire in the towers on the september 11, and the resulting exposure of floor sysyems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces.


As you can clearly read NIST's statement above, it clearly states that the test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approx 2 hrs WITHOUT COLLAPSING



About wtc 7 read this link
www.popularmechanics.com...


From your LINK: "There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation"

So where is the full investigation into WTC7 by NIST?

It's taken them somewhat 6 years to come up with an investigation that the public has yet to see.



I have but you have not looked at any of my links I posted or you would know that it was Purdue University researchers that made the computer model and not nist.


Purdue University researchers have made computer models i understand that anyone can make a computer model, what NIST has failed to do is to release there computer models to show collapse initiation which supports there official explanation. Why do they not release there Computer Models that show that?

Simple Answer: Because they don't what there claiming


You still did not answer my question in relation to Molten Metal found weeks after 9/11.

Here it is again:

"And im asking you, from your claims your agreeing with NIST on the basis that temperatures reached 1000 Degrees Celsius to "WEAKEN" the steel. So thus temperatures did not get hot enough to MELT steel. Ok you following... here we go... now if temperatures were NOT hot enough to melt steel then why were there pools of molten and metal found weeks after the 9/11 attacks not only under the Twin Towers but under WTC7."

BeZerK



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeZerk.........here we go... now if temperatures were NOT hot enough to melt steel then why were there pools of molten and metal found weeks after the 9/11 attacks not only under the Twin Towers but under WTC7."

BeZerK


Molten metal ain't necessarily molten steel


I still don't get it, this 911 Cult/Fable/Fairy Tale. I keep looking at the so called evidence and in most areas at best its honours even for the "twoofers". What is it six years later and the main body of humanity are not converted by the cult?

The world has moved on, whatever did or did not happen that day will never be fully known. 911 happened and is in the past, we survived so we should be worrying about the next major event...natural or man made.

If it was not for the internet the story would have died long ago, yet even with the power of the internet there is no major progress is there?

No doubt I am labeled a "sheeple" but really do I care for the opinion of cult followers? I am no fan of Bush or the yanks generally, I like to see them get a bloody nose once in a while, even better if self inflicted. So if the country that gave us "Blue on Blue" could be proven to have committed the act (in whatever version) I would be mildly amused. In fact a huge guffaw would emanate from my lips. "Yes world, this is the sort of thing the Imperialist Yankees want to export to you with their style of Democracy!!"

So come on "twoofers" prove the game...I am still resentful for all that tea you chaps threw away
Nothing better than a self inflicted wound for the smugness of the likes of me



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Where are the internal walls???? Kinda important, wouldn't you say?


How about elevator/mechanical banks in the core? I didn't see them. So much for finite element analysis when you ommit elements.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join