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.
Here's the link:11-settembre.blogspot.com. If you will notice in the first picture you posted, there is slag on top of the debris around the column that has been cut. Why would there be slag on the collapse debris if the column was cut before the collapse?
It's not my explanation, but it sounds reasonable to me.
There are also idiots out there that beilieve in fairies, gargoyles, and that Hitler was a great guy.
To understand the situation more clearly, I acquired photographs taken by Joel Meyerowitz, the only professional photographer allowed at Ground Zero.
I have verified that in Meyerowitz's panoramic views, taken very shortly after the collapses from many locations at Ground Zero, there are absolutely no columns which bear the markings of straight or diagonal thermal cuts, contrary to the claims of the supporters of alternative theories.
I am quickly loosing my patience with this site. Now I know I don't have much of a chance convincing people who come to a 9-11 conspiracy theory page in the first place. But you should be nice to your opposition, OHH no wait you all like sitting around stroking your own egos for figuring out the grand plot of the worlds most elite.
originally posted by HothSnake1
Hmmm... The only professional photographer allowed at Ground Zero?
Really? Where are the pictures?
Once again debunkers offer an alternative explanation, but provide no proof and barely any evidence to back up their theories. Part of investigating a matter is putting together the puzzle. Things on their own may not stand, but when considered with the preponderance of the evidence, suddenly are very important. Debunkers spend all of their time finding what they consider to be alternative explanations for isolated evidence, but they offer nothing to prove their own theories other than "the government said it, respect my authoritay!"
Hmmm... The only professional photographer allowed at Ground Zero? There seemed to be a lot of this going on. No one seemed to be allowed in to inspect the evidence, and not because it was too dangerous.
Really? Where are the pictures?
Debunkers spend all of their time finding what they consider to be alternative explanations for isolated evidence, but they offer nothing to prove their own theories other than "the government said it, respect my authoritay!"
Again, your MIT guy does not explain how a 110 story steel structure could experience catasrophic failure across the entire structure at nearly the same moment due to some weakened beams and trusses at the top of the structure.
how a 110 story steel structure could experience catasrophic failure across the entire structure at nearly the same moment
Originally posted by teebigins
Source:www-math.mit.edu...
In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure
causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding
800C.
its always the same line: "he's working for the man, she's brainwashed, they are stupid sheep" .
So now the photographer is in on it? What about the news crews and the first responders with cameras? Are they in on it too?
Of what? The leftover detonation cords and remains of explosives? I don't know, you tell me.
Replace debunkers with conspiracy believers and let me know if your standards still stand.
You never did answer my question of which sources I can cite. Will you get back to me on that please?
Good thing access was limited. Also they didn't want people crawling all over the scraps
where are your pictures that show straight/diagnol cuts? I want time stamps on those too.
"the weight of the upper part of the structure( you agree with upper portion collapse) above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the critical floor, gathering speed until it impacts the lower part. At that moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity. The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part (stage 4) applies enormous vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even if it is not heated."
No it's "poor guys have to come up with pseudo science to prove an already predetermined conclusion". That's not how it's suppossed to work.
Fetzer characterizes Dr. Wood, who has degrees in civil engineering, engineering mechanics, and materials engineering science, as the leading expert on technical aspects of the destruction of the World Trade Center. "There are experts in many areas of science and of engineering studying 9/11," he explained, "but she has degrees that are centrally focused on critical areas in which competence is required to begin to understand what happened on 9/11. No one else in the 9/11 community comes close to her level of expertise."
Her complaint, technically, Request for Correction, like the others, asserts that the basic integrity of NIST's report, called NCSTAR 1, is lacking because, by its own admission, NIST did not investigate the actual destruction of the World Trade Center Towers: "The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower." This means that the NIST report does not actually include the collapse behavior of the towers after the conditions for their initiation were realized, which NIST refers to as "the probable collapse sequence."
"NIST, of course, claims that it was the impact of the aircraft and the jet-fuel based fires, which caused the steel to weaken and bring about a collapse," Fetzer said. "But the buildings were designed to withstand such occurrences and the steel had been certified by UL to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for several hours without weakening. The fires only burned around 500 degrees for less than an hour (in the case of WTC-2) and an hour-and-a-half (in the case of WTC-2), so NIST really doesn't even reach the point at which a 'collapse' of any kind would be 'initiated.' The situation is quite remarkable."
Buckles may have happened at same time but MIT man even says either accompanied by OR quickly followed by. What do you mean at the same time? The whole building only took seconds to come down. Should it have taken hours to come down? Even controlled demo takes seconds.
If you don't want to believe it that's fine, but don't tell me that no one is giving you an answer.
In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure
causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding
800C.
First assumption wrong. NIST found no such thing. So, since their first assumption is incorrect, would that make their entire paper incorrect? Yes.
Not to mention his freefall of an entire tower block with no resistance to come up with the energy. I wonder if he knows that buckled columns still give resistance? Assumption number 2 wrong.
Shall I continue?
Assuming that the floor above were weakened enough to fail, what amount of potential energy released into kinetic energy could cause the chain reaction described here?
I'm quoting her again because you ignored her the first time. I think that she is imminently more qualified than anyone else to address these issues.
Exactly, which is why your pancake theory just doesn't hold water. Assuming all of the things that you assume (a lot) it would still take far longer and would look far different than what we observed on 9-11. Commonsense tells me this, and I don't have to work up a computer model for you.
You have still failed to answer my specific question, and yes it hinges on timing: How did two skyscrapers explode in an instant in the same location at nearly the same time?
Originally posted by teebigins
ACTUAL QUOTE FROM NIST PAGE:
"the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns"
source:wtc.nist.gov...
Finally, in the several columns with known pre-collapse fire exposure, metallographic analysis provided no conclusive evidence that the steel exceeded 625 C, based on calibrations in furnace exposure studies of WTC steel reported in NIST NCSTAR 1-3E.
I am convinced you are a pathological liar. Get you facts f&^#in straight before you come on here and spout your lies.
Assumption 1 correct!
Prove the buckling columns gave enough resistance to stop the free fall?
You can't you just say whatever you have too in order to win an argument with little regard for facts.
Google Video Link |
Q: Weren't the Twin Towers poorly constructed?
Answer:
No one has had the ability to prove that the towers were poorly constructed. Yet our major media has suggested, in TV programs and printed articles, that (1) the buildings were poorly constructed; (2) the structural steel used in their frames was defective; (3) the fireproofing of this steel was inadequate.
In fact, the buildings were "over-engineered." This means that each floor could bear many times its weight, and the endo- (inside) and exo- (outside) steel skeletons actually constituted two frames, not just one. The core (inside frame) was composed of 47 steel columns made of 4-inch-thick steel at the base (go to a construction site and ask to see an I-beam for an example of what structural steel is like). The exterior frame was made of 236 columns, plus four corner columns.
Kevin Ryan (Google his articles) of Underwriters' Laboratories, the global testing giant that certified the WTC steel decades ago, has exposed UL's strange acceptance of the decree that the structural steel failed, even though not a single one of the test models failed. Ryan drew attention to this while at UL, wondering why his company was willing to put its reputation in question. He was fired immediately.
The New York Times reported that when the planes hit the towers, the impact knocked the asbestos fireproofing off the structural steel, and the fires that ensued attacked unprotected steel. This caused certain floors to fail, and the falling floors brought down the floors beneath them, resulting in a pancaking of the entire tower. Twice!
In fact, the towers' tremendous strength explains how they continued to stand after the airplanes plowed into them. They would have stood for many more years, with their gaping holes, if no repairs were conducted. Instead, they came down in approximately 10 seconds, which suggests that something other than the plane impacts was involved. (See "Jet Fuel" FAQ for more info on the fires.) source
Jet fuel is refined kerosene. Airliners use "Jet A" kerosene and the military uses "JP 4" kerosene. Regardless, neither grade burns hot, or it would melt the inside of a jet engine.
Jet A is the same stuff burned in conventional steel wall heaters. In an open-air office fire such as that at WTC (called a "dirty burn") kerosene or any hydrocarbon will burn at around 500-700degrees Fahrenheit. The FEMA report on 911 said that the jet fuel burned off after a few minutes and the fires from the office furniture and carpets were about 560 degrees. The special structural steel of the WTC has over 98% of its strength at those temperatures, and the WTC was built to hold 5 times its load.
skyscrapers EXPLODED at same time? You are wacked outta the head dude.
HOW hoth argues.
Finally, in the several columns with known pre-collapse fire exposure, metallographic analysis provided no conclusive evidence that the steel exceeded 625 C, based on calibrations in furnace exposure studies of WTC steel reported in NIST NCSTAR 1-3E.
Assumption 1 correct!
I don't have to. The fact that buckled columns give resistance makes the MIT guys analysis moot. They assume that there is no resistance. Whatever the resistance was, it would cause their calculations to be incorrect (and higher than reality).
I don't think I'm the one not looking at facts my friend.
evidence proves the towers were blown. however, this particular truth can be easily ignored by the massive cognitive dissonance which it creates
I've read a feeble explanation for the visable demolition squibs seen throughout the structure during the collapse as air compression due to pancaking floors, but if this were the case then you would find the squibs just below the collapse wave. What do we see in the video evidence? Squibs several hundred feet below the collapse wave.
You're funny.... You're the one claiming to have the same argument throughout the whole thread, which according to you means that the rest of us are inconsistant? You contradict yourself so often that it is difficult to understand let alone counter.
Originally posted by teebigins
He never assumes no resistance, you assume he assumes no resistance.
What he actually says is that the columns lose their load carrying capacity. Doesn't mean no resistance.
MIT guy is talking to a scientific audience, he assumes that people understand that if there is motion then clearly the resisting forces of buckled columns was not enough to hold weight of building. IE CAN"T CARRY LOAD.
have you taken mechanics ever?
Not only do I look at facts I correctly interpret them as well.