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 tezzajw
Originally posted by Disclosed
So the "planes" filmed and seen by non-media people that day...weren't really planes at all?
This isnt turning into a "no planes" thread now, is it?
Here are some conflicting eyewitness reports that dispute what might have allegedly 'hit' the towers.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by Disclosed
Incorrect. The reports state the following: The plane impacts, and resulting fires, started a chain of events that led to the eventual collapse. I can show you those quotes again in the released reports, if you like.
More structural damage? Were they hit by aircraft as well? What caused the structural damage?
So the "planes" filmed and seen by non-media people that day...weren't really planes at all?
Most reports state that the main casue of the collapse was the fire.
This is the final report on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, conducted under the National Construction Safety Team Act. This report describes how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapse of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by DisclosedThanks for agreeing with my post.
I will makes this as simple as i can.
Please read the following lines and please try to understand that they are stating the fire was the main casue of the collapse.
but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework.
The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse.
[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by Disclosed
The NIST definately knows what its talking about
Combined effects....impact and resulting fires.
Fact.
How can NIST know what they are talking about when they do not do test for chemicals and explosives on the WTC 1 and 2 steel and do not recover any steel at all from WTC 7?
FACT,, Thats not what the Director of NIST stated in front of Homeland Security, was he lying to them?
[edit on 29-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by Disclosed
Originally posted by Disclosed
I thought at one time you said the fires were not that large, and burning out. Yet these experts say the fires were large enough to bring down the buildings on their own?
I am just posting facts and evidence from the sites as i do research.
As stated trying to find the truth of what really happened.
[edit on 30-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by Disclosed
It is quite apparent that once they got all the facts and evidence, they were able to make their conclusions
How can they conclude that planes contributed to the collapse of the towers, when they don't have the facts or evidence to identify that planes were involved?
Originally posted by jfj123
You're always going to have some conflicting testimony. That's why they say, "preponderance of evidence". It's really hard to argue with the massive amount of videos and photos though showing at the very least, some type of planes hit the buildings.
Originally posted by jfj123
So what you're saying is that the fires in the other buildings caused more structural damage then a jet liner hitting a building. So you are also saying that indeed fires can cause severe structural damage.
Would you like me to post photos, videos, etc.?? Because those things are evidence that SOME TYPE OF LARGE PLANES HIT THE BUILDINGS.
Originally posted by jfj123
By selectively copying those lines, you are taking the idea of the report out of context. Let me put it simply, you are wrong based on your own posts.
Originally posted by jfj123
Why would they test for explosives?
Originally posted by jfj123
But according to your own previous posts, those aren't facts.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
NO, i am not taking the reports out of context. The reports state that the fires were the main cause of the collapse.
Also i have shown that NIST own model concludes impact and fire did not casue the collapse.
General Findings
Finding 42: The structural analyses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 found that the collapse of the towers was due to the combined effects of structural and insulation damage from aircraft impact and the subsequential fires on the core, floor systems and exterior walls. The towers collapsed when the weakened core and exterior columns could no longer redistribute or support the building loads with the reduced load carrying capacity.
Finding 43: Impact damage alone did not cause collapse of the towers, as they were stable after the aircraft impact. Global analyses showed that both towers has substantial reserve capacity after the aircraft impact.
Finding 44: The multi-floor fires alone did not cause the collapse of the towers. Without impact damage to the insulation, the structural steel temperatures would have been generally less that 200 C to 300C, with a few isolated locations of structural steel temperatures exceeding 400 C in WTC 1 floors and 500 C in WTC 2 floors. The core would not have weakened, the floor sag would have been insufficient to pull inward on the exteriour columns, and the exterior walls would not have bowed inward.
Originally posted by Disclosed
The NIST report clearly states the following
Originally posted by Pilgrum
Did FEMA report finding positive evidence of explosives or traces of chemicals that would have to be introduced to the building (IE chemicals that couldn't have been already present for everyday non-evil purposes) in order to cause structural failure?
Findings reported in Appendix C of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study seem to fit the thermite theory remarkably well.
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.
FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
Originally posted by Disclosed
The report does not state that fire was the main cause of the collapse. The NIST report clearly states the following:
The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.
The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework. Heat from the fire was comparable to the energy produced by a large commercial power-generating plant, the report said.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.
Originally posted by bsbray11
After reading things like this, and knowing what the NIST report does and does not contain, I have to wonder how the "debunkers" came to think these reports really agreed with their own opinions in the first place.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The FEMA report states the buidling withdtood the planes impacts and that fire was the main casue of the collapse.
Originally posted by Disclosed
I'm curious why you linked a reporters story, and interpretation, rather than the actual FEMA report. You should have no problem showing us what page of the report states that then.
The NIST report definately says otherwise.
Originally posted by Disclosed
The NIST report definately says otherwise.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The site that posted the FEMA report is a firefighter site. Not a media site.
FEMA Report: Engineers Study WTC Collapse
SHANNON McCAFFREY
Associated Press Writer