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 StudioGuy
The evidence that the planes and ensuing fires brought the towers down is that I saw the collisions (well, the 2nd one live, the first one later), the fires burn, and the buildings fall.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by StudioGuy
The evidence that the planes and ensuing fires brought the towers down is that I saw the collisions (well, the 2nd one live, the first one later), the fires burn, and the buildings fall.
Sorry but you seeing the planes and the fires does not mean thats what brought them down.
You need actual facts and evidence that show the planes and fires brought them down.
Originally posted by StudioGuyNot true. I would need evidence that something OTHER than the structural failure caused by the impact and fire caused the collapse. Do you have anything like that? I'm not closed to the idea that there's more to it, but I haven't seen evidence that there is.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by StudioGuyNot true. I would need evidence that something OTHER than the structural failure caused by the impact and fire caused the collapse. Do you have anything like that? I'm not closed to the idea that there's more to it, but I haven't seen evidence that there is.
Well why should i supply evidence if you will not provide evdience to support your theory? If we were in court and i supplied evidence and you did not you would loose the case.
Originally posted by moonking
The towers peeled down, like a banana, as the outer columns were snapping off (where they were fasten together) the concrete floor slabs started falling, while at first still attach to the inner core columns pulling and snapping them down as well
I still say it was how these columns were fasten together was the biggest failure
This video shows some inner core momentarily still intact
www.youtube.com...
When the flame are billowing out of the building in this video, there coming out between the columns, is there any doubt the columns were getting extremely hot ( a common sense question)
www.youtube.com...
[edit on 10-12-2007 by moonking]
Originally posted by Haroki
Aluminum melts at what, 600C? So the steel in that area was certainly 500C, at which point steel loses 1/2 its' strength...
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by StudioGuyNot true. I would need evidence that something OTHER than the structural failure caused by the impact and fire caused the collapse. Do you have anything like that? I'm not closed to the idea that there's more to it, but I haven't seen evidence that there is.
Well why should i supply evidence if you will not provide evdience to support your theory? If we were in court and i supplied evidence and you did not you would loose the case.
But to answer your question, yes i do have lots of facts and reports.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by Haroki
Aluminum melts at what, 600C? So the steel in that area was certainly 500C, at which point steel loses 1/2 its' strength...
If I had twenty thumbs, I would have given twenty thumbs up. However, (a) it's unrelated to the issue of Al curring Fe (b) the forum member "ULTIMA1" will bamboozle you with all sorts of non sequitur, so your argument is in vain.
The potential force of the impact from each plane can be approximately
calculated and the figures are very large. The weight of each plane would
have been approximately 150 tonnes, according to the media reports and
Boeing data on this type of plane. The plane would have been traveling at
around 800 kms/hour at impact.
This gives a momentum of 150x800/3.6=33,333 tonnes.m/sec. If the plane was arrested by the building in effectively 0.6 seconds, which is a reasonable estimate based on a linear deacceleration over the 63.5 m width of the building, then the force exerted on the building is the momentum/effective time to arrest, ie Force=33,333/0.6=55,555kN.
To put that in perspective, the ultimate limit state design wind pressure over the entire height of the building is 220 kg/m2. This gives a ULS wind force on one face of the building of 58,400 kN. Thus the potential force of impact from the plane is 95% of the design ultimate limit state wind load on the building! Especially in the case of the North Tower, not much of the plane was ejected from the building, so it is reasonable to assume the most of that potential force was absorbed by the building.
Originally posted by jfj123
You see, what you call "the official story" is the equivalent of a person being accused of a crime. Your side would be the prosecuting side and your side is the only side which is required to present evidence. The accused may sit silently and remain innocent until proven guilty.
Originally posted by StudioGuy
You're sadly mistaken about your position in this. The evidence to backup what I say is that it's what happened and was captured on videotape all over the place and concluded in numerous official reports.
Originally posted by adjay
Hollow box structure? Can you prove the WTC was a hollow box structure? Since when is steel and concrete hollow? Do you have any idea how much concrete/steel was behind the part of the building the plane was ploughing into when it hit the WTC?
The perimeter columns had a square cross section, 14 inches on a side (36 cm), and were constructed of welded steel plate
To solve the problem of wind sway or vibration in the construction of the towers, chief engineer Leslie Robertson took a then unusual approach — instead of bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls, the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a central core and perimeter columns sharing the loads.
The thickness of the plates and grade of structural steel varied over the height of the tower, ranging from 36[48] (260 to 670 MPa). The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors.[47] The tube-frame design required 40 percent less structural steel than conventional building designs
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj123
Yes and when i do provide the evidence then your defense side will need to show evidence to fight my evidence or you will be guilty.
No you are very mistaken. The FBI and NTSB has not released most of the videos, evidence, and official reports.
In case you did not know the FBI and NTSB are the main investigating agencies.
Originally posted by jfj123
In case you did not know the FBI and NTSB are the main investigating agencies.
By law, the FBI becomes the lead investigative agency when airline crashes are the result of a criminal act, and the NTSB provides support when requested.
I never stated there was any wrong doing. I am stating that people that still believe the official story have not done the research to find the truth of what happened. I am doing research to find the truth since my education and experience, along with common sense tells me the official story we have been fed is wrong.
Originally posted by jfj123
This means you believe there was wrong doing on the part of the government. .