It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by LaBTop
Griff, you admitted to the same thoughts about core columns failure as I had.
I have to note however, that when a portion of about 1 meter of ALL core columns suddenly would be missing, and the above parts of those columns would come crashing down 1 meter, with the floors still attached, that in my opinion all 4 exterior walls would start buckling inwards, if all floors held tightly welded to the angle plates welded on the inside of the exterior columns.
So what caused the SLOWLY developing localized buckling over some 20 minutes, as reported by NYPD helicopter pilots, if not caused by sagging floors?
That must have meant that part of the hat truss was compromised.
The part where the radio tower was attached to.
Or, the whole hat truss fell INTO the rest of the building.
I happened to look at your thread today, and it certainly took a turn for the worse. There are a few things I might clarify for the group, and the moderators there:
I have no intention of joining the ATS Forum. This is not a slight against ATS, but more an acknowledgement of the futility in Internet bickering with conspiracy theorists. In similar fashion, I have been asked to join PhysOrg.com, for instance, but have declined that invitation as well. I still post on the JREF, albeit much less than I once did, but this has more to do with history and interests besides September 11th. I was originally drawn there by myths of high-end audio, if you can believe that.
The whole reason I wrote my whitepaper in the first place was to elevate the discussion. Rather than continue bickering, I sought to write something more thorough, more carefully researched, and more lasting -- a kind of coup de grace, if you will. The whitepaper covers a large range of popular conspiracy theorist myths, and Dr. Griffin, who amalgamates nearly all of them into a loose narrative, served as an appropriate foil.
There are those (such as Tony Szamboti, contributor to the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice") who deride my whitepaper simply because it (like his works) hasn't been peer-reviewed. It has not, of course. However, I am unaware of any suitable review board for a critique of a similarly un-peer-reviewed book, written by a professional theologian with no detectable relevant credentials or association, relying itself upon the words of a handful of self-proclaimed experts who have also yet to produce a single peer-reviewed result between them. (If anyone is aware of a suitable review board, I will certainly look into it -- my e-mail is on the front page of the whitepaper. Thanks.)
Since there is no readily apparent form of appropriate review, I determined that the best way to guarantee and maintain quality of the whitepaper was to subject it to as many informal reviews as possible, and facilitate any and all feedback. This is why my e-mail address is on the front page, and why I encourage virtually any and all reproduction. To date I have received a healthy number of responses, and I have made a number of minor corrections. I have not, however, received any corrections of significance, and though this does not prove I have everything right, it is reassuring. As I have noted elsewhere, I am a scientist, and I am committed to accuracy. If there's a mistake in there, show it to me, and I promise to fix it.
But, you can't just make an unsupported claim and expect me to adopt it. You have to explain your reasoning. I have, for instance, received a few e-mails claiming I'm wrong simply because "it's obvious that explosives were used." Hardly. I've also received a couple of messages with no intellectual content at all, merely the work of mental deficients claiming that, because I wrote this whitepaper, I am a traitor to the United States.
There is no way to avoid these kinds of juvenile, borderline insane responses. If I was discussing this in an Internet forum -- any Internet forum -- those replies would immediately prompt derails, escalate into epithets, and invite more of the same from the original irresponsible party or his admirers. The message is lost. By releasing a more formal document and controlling the editorial process, on the other hand, nobody ever has to see this. Those who see fit to call for my execution are simply added to my "delete" file, and that's that. The time wasted is theirs, not mine, and not that of other readers.
With the recent dustup at the ATS Forum as an example, I feel completely justified in this course of action. For whatever reason, and without pointing any fingers, it is impossible to hold a discussion on September 11th conspiracy theories without someone resorting to ad hominem attacks and colorful language, not to mention the well-known "conspiracy shuffle" of endlessly changing the argument in an attempt to appear knowledgeable. My whitepaper only considers Dr. Griffin and NIST in an attempt to remain as dispassionate and scientific as possible, by design, yet still discussions of its content inevitably lose all decorum simply because of the subject matter -- or because of the character of those discussing it. If you believe there is a scientific basis for September 11th conspiracy theories, this fact should give you some pause. Were there truly a scientific basis, it would be possible to hold a totally calm and clear-headed discussion on those scientific topics, but strangely, this never seems to happen.
To the Moderators, I sympathize with your confusion on how to handle this thread. Let me simply state that I, too, never anticipated a lengthy Q&A thread through an intermediary -- which, on the surface, could resemble an attempt to circumvent moderation. That's not how it started.
The way it started is that a number of individuals read my whitepaper and asked questions, but for reasons known only to them, they *did not ask them of me.* As I have noted, my e-mail is on the front page of the whitepaper. Nobody saw fit to ask me for clarifications; instead they opted to discuss it here, in a vacuum.
What happened next is that another poster, Captain Obvious, wanted to know the answers to those questions. Some were even good questions. Since the questioners weren't asking me, his recourse was to e-mail me himself. I gave him the answers. He chose, on his own, to share those answers with the rest of the ATS Forum. This all seems perfectly reasonable to me.
What happened after that is that the other ATS posters continued to question, but still did not contact me, in effect taking advantage of Captain Obvious's initiative. This went on for some time. Now, weeks and several pages later, I see at least one of those people complaining retroactively about this arrangement, which strikes me as hypocrisy of a high order.
If there is a moderation issue here, that is no concern of mine. I have no stake in the ATS Forum and I would agree that this situation is unusual. Do as you must, I respect your duty in this matter.
My concern is the accuracy of my whitepaper. I point out, with mild rebuke, that not one of the posters other than Captain Obvious ever attempted to contact me, perhaps signifying either uncertainty in their positions (however strongly worded on the Forum) or total disinterest. I find Captain Obvious's requests for answers to be commendable, and it appears he honestly wishes to learn. The choices of the other posters are harder for me to understand.
With that, I would recommend that anyone who is actually interested should contact me directly. The choice of whether to share the results of such a conversation at the ATS Forum or elsewhere are entirely up to you.
As a parting note, and to provide some useful content to this message, I have one technical observation for poster Griff, whose questions (relayed through Captain Obvious) did always seem reasonable. Regarding the perimeter columns, the reason you are confused is that, while the perimeter columns had constant exterior dimensions, the column strength was NOT constant with height. From NIST NCSTAR1-1, pages 10-11:
"Fourteen grades of steel were specified in the design documents for the perimeter columns, with minimum yield strengths of (36, 42, 45, 46, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, and 100) ksi. Twelve grades were actually used. [...] The structural engineering plans indicate that the flanges and webs of a given column section consist of a single grade (i.e., minimum yield strength) of steel, but each column and spandrel within a single prefabricated panel could be fabricated from different grades of steel. The use of different grades of steel facilitated in maintaining uniform exterior dimensions of the exterior columns throughout the building as well as equalize the dead load stresses and shortening of very tall steel columns.
Columns in the upper stories were typically fabricated of thinner steel plates, as thin as 0.25 in., with the grade of steel dictated by the calculated gravity and wind loads. In this manner, the gravity load on the lower stories was minimized. In the lower stories the perimeter column webs were often more than 2 in. thick."
What this means, in other words, is that the perimeter columns at any given floor were built with roughly the same safety factor. The columns at the impact floors were on the order of ten to fifteen times weaker than those on the floors near ground level. Hence the "2000%" quote cannot mean anything other than I have already explained.
Also, I see no reason for the angle clips to have approached or exceeded 45 degrees prior to collapse -- they could have been hit and flattened afterwards from above once the collapse got underway, but photographs of the hanging floors, and models of sag presented in NCSTAR1-6 do not predict that much sag. Nor is that much needed to produce the pull-in forces expected.
With that I return you to your Forum and your discussion. My apologies if I have inadvertently caused a disruption.
Regarding the perimeter columns, the reason you are confused is that, while the perimeter columns had constant exterior dimensions, the column strength was NOT constant with height. From NIST NCSTAR1-1, pages 10-11:
Fire is not affected by gravity.
Originally posted by six
The biggest sign of how big and hot the fires were was the smoke and air that were pulled back into the building.
Originally posted by six
I will try and locate the video. It showed the smoke from the fires being pulled back into the building, not being blown back in.
Smoke does not hold heat.
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by kleverone
Great thread! This is exactly the type of thread that ATS needs to see more of! Great Post Captain!
Ask him how the building was able to fall in just about 10 seconds? Was there zero resistance from the floor below when each floor above seem to just fall straight down?
I hope he doesn't ask him this because the building didn't fall in "just about 10 seconds". It fell in 14 to 16 seconds (WTC 1 and WTC 2).
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."