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 thedman
One the Sprandrel beams were 3/8" on the lower floors, narrowing
to 1/4" (6mm) higher up to save weight. The beams were about 40"
(1 meter apart) - some say because the building designer was
afraid of heights and didn't want large windows !
) Aircraft impact, often described as sounding like a dull thud or a "whump," with a moderate vibration of the building. The aircraft, traveling at very high speeds, cut through the building exteriors easily. The buildings began to sway appreciably after they had absorbed and decelerated the majority of the aircraft mass.
4) Swaying back and forth of the building, strong enough to make people lose their balance, lasting 10 seconds or so. Many people thought the building would collapse at this point. The building movement caused further damage to walls, floors, and ceilings. Some people described the building "torquing" (twisting).
Just three floors below the impact zone, not a thing budged in Steve McIntyre's office. Not the slate paperweight shaped like a sailing ship. Not the family snapshots propped up on a bookcase. Mr. McIntyre found himself in front of a computer that was still on.
Then came the whiplash.
A powerful shock wave quickly radiated up and down from the impact zone. The wave bounced from the top to the bottom of the tower, three or four seconds one way and then back, rocking the building like a huge boat in a storm.
Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
The perimeter columns may have been bolted AND then welded together.
Most certainly the 52” tall, ten foot wide, 3/8” thick steel spandrel plates — forming a circumference around the entire building — were welded to the columns.
Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post thedman. I've watched all the videos and haven't seen it move one inch. Could you please direct me to a video where I can see it sway 12 feet. Thanks.
Originally posted by sensfan
Holograms have come a long way. Here is one of Kate Moss from a recent fashion show.
Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
reply to post by Chorlton
Dear Chorlton:
I beg to differ. What matters is the PSI (amount of pressure) at point of impact. We’re talking about penetrating forces, not plowing-over powers. A hypothetical aircraft the size of a “death star battleship” made of aluminum and cruising at 500 mph still wouldn’t have sliced through the twin towers, it would have PUSHED them over!
Originally posted by infinityoreilly
Originally posted by zysin5
One of my main questions with the whole hologram deal is about the sounds the planes made..
One of my personal issues with the hologram idea. You'ld have to match everthing up maybe not perfectly but damn close.
And IIB brings up the point of the holes in the sides of the buildings and the way the steel was bent inward. How do holograms account for that?
Originally posted by Nola213**But here's the sad thing. EVEN if it was no planes(I haven't really made up my mind one way or another), it IS makeing alot of people stay away from the 9/11 truth movement. If they would just keep that stuff under thier hats, and go with the CD/prior knowledge which can be better proven and won't scare people away from the movement thinking we're a bunch of nutters, we'd get alot more done, and get the true criminals even if for LIHOP.
Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
John Lear happens to be a nice person and technically a very knowledgeable one. My guess is he’s put forth the hologram theory to reconcile the fact that there were no planes with the purported eyewitnesses.
He’s offering a technical solution — his uncommon insights allow this — to what people have claimed they saw. His only possible deficiency may be that he’s not cynical enough to consider the possibility that people could be delusional or outright lying about what they observed. All the so-called bystanders are far too defensive and short with their descriptions of their recollections — something’s just not right there.
Holograms or not, there was no physical evidence of planes crashing on 9-11. Not in theory or in reality.
In case you don’t think people are capable of fibbing — read the now closed ‘Towers of Terror” thread. Whoever wrote that doesn’t have a conscience (I don’t mean the original poster, I’m talking bout the pasted content).
Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods
Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
So let’s do a little math here, since ya’ll love numbers:
In any 120 ft2 (10ftx12ft) section of the WTC twin tower outer walls, 43 ft2 were solid steel spandrel plates, 42 ft2 were rock-solid perimeter column box beams, leaving only 35 ft2 of open space for the ‘planes’ to enter. In percentages, 71 % of the twin tower walls were SOLID STEEL, min. quarter inch thick, and only 29% were open spaces (windows). This means 71% of the Boeings should have dropped down on the streets of New York City. Did any of this happen? Was anyone filming plane wreckage during the 90 minutes prior to the first collapse? This is what’s grist to the mills of us no-planers.
Originally posted by titorite
IF you blow that picture up you will see some of the beams bow outward not inward. Why should they bow outward when all the force was forward moving....
Not to mention have you seen all five shots on the various networks of the planes flight approach?
These clarified original design wind load estimates all exceed those established by the New York City building code prior to 1968 (when the WTC towers were designed) and through 2001 (when the towers were destroyed). The values also are higher than those required by other selected building codes of the era, including the relevant national model building code.
Wind load capacity is a key factor in determining the overall strength of a tall building and is important in determining not only its ability to withstand winds but also its reserve capacity to withstand unanticipated events such as a major fire or impact damage.
Originally posted by titorite
reply to post by 2PacSade
IF you blow that picture up you will see some of the beams bow outward not inward. Why should they bow outward when all the force was forward moving....
Not to mention have you seen all five shots on the various networks of the planes flight approach?