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 Seymour Butz
And don't insult anyone's intelligence about the cropping, it ain't gonna fly. You cropped that photo in a dishonest attempt to back your statement. After we agreed that a 15 hr fire rating is not probable, you stated something to the effect that maybe the hand written doc was for a dead load calc. WHich of course means that you were aware that is was indeed a calc for dead loads BEFORE you even posted it, and were just covering your tracks.
Pathetic.
Originally posted by Griff
Originally posted by bsbray11
There was also asbestos and more cementous fireproofing. I think Griff knows more about this.
In NISTNCSTAR1-1A, they have a section where it's the handwritten section of "Criteria For Design Inside Of Core Unit Dead Load".
Page 43/166 of the pdf (7 of the actual report)
Listed under "Beam Fireproofing" they have 1-inch contact (I'm assuming this is the spray-on?), 1-inch Cementitous, 1 3/8-inch gypsum plaster and they also have listed under the "beam fireproofing" concrete, lightweight and concrete, stone aggregate but with no thickness.
Page 45/166 of the pdf (9 of the actual report)
Listed under "Column Fireproofing" they have 3-inches contact, 2 1/2-inch cementitous, 1 7/8-inch gypsum plaster w/metal lath and 2-inch solid gypsum block w/2-inch plaster.
wtc.nist.gov...
Which I believe is a lot more than the "flimsy spray-on fireproofing" theory that they want to sell us.
Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by Mason mike
Mike,
What you have presented is a strawman tactic. You and I both know that there isn't a photograph of flight 77 striking the Pentagon. (besides the fish-eye lensed camera)
Do you know that the Space Shuttle Columbia broke upon re-entry a few years ago?
You believe that right?
How come?
EVIDENCE!
There isn't any video and or photographs but there is substantial evidence that proves it.
I don't want to get into this too much. Bsbrays thread has been derailed quite a bit. I'm hopeful you know where I am going with this.
Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I'm wondering what would happen if everyone put the Throat/ButzYogurt clan on ignore?
If a professional debunker falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it really make a noise?
Golden,
If you dislike me for my attitude..by all means ignore me. If you are going to ignore me because of the information I share, then my friend you are going 100% against what it is you guys preach. "Asking Questions / Demanding Answers... or "Searching for the truth"
Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by GoldenFleece
I get my information from reliable sources. Please show me where I got it wrong. If is see that I made a mistake, I will correct it.
Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Why does this get rehashed over and over. Does anyone know how to read?
The debris field that extended far beyond the impact point was of LIGHT MATERIALS !!! Papers etc:
For the first two or three days, Marshall walked the surrounding countryside looking for airplane parts.
"I found a lot of parts," said Marshall, who was awarded a 2000 Law Enforcement Agency Directors award for identifying a man nearly four years after he was found murdered.
"The biggest part I found was one of the plane's engines. It was about 600 yards from the crash site itself. I think they took it out with a winch on a bulldozer."
While the FBI and other authorities have said the plane was mostly obliterated by the 500 mph impact, they also said a 1,000-pound piece of one of the engines was found "a considerable distance" from the crater in the wide open spaces of the Svonavec Coal Co.
Well, except for it's engines.
Does anyone know how to post a story without spinning it?
Flight 93 engine found 1/3 of a mile from crash site:
Originally posted by thedman
Well, except for it's engines.
Does anyone know how to post a story without spinning it?
Flight 93 engine found 1/3 of a mile from crash site:
It was piece of the engine fan - part in front of engine which sucks in
air. It broke off on impact and rolled DOWNHILL (you get that DOWNHILL!)
landing in catchbasin drain. Nothing unusual about that - rolling
downhill.
Originally posted by gottago
The heart of NIST's report was finding the mechanism of the onset of collapse for WTC 1 & 2. After the pancake theory bit the dust, the replacement was that floors sagged to such an extent that they pulled in the exterior column-mesh enough to create global failure. The deflection of the floors that was needed to initiate collapse was IIRC, 52 inches.
As Kevin Ryan has shown, the NIST team first went about examining this theory by rebuilding a floor of the wtc and exterior columns and subjecting this to 2 hours of high-intensity fires--twice the time of fire in the actual buildings, at much higher temperatures. The live loads were doubled. No fireproofing was used, in the belief it was all shorn from the steel.
The result of their empirical experiment? 2 inches of deflection.
As Kevin Ryan has shown, the NIST team first went about examining this theory by rebuilding a floor of the wtc and exterior columns and subjecting this to 2 hours of high-intensity fires--twice the time of fire in the actual buildings, at much higher temperatures. The live loads were doubled. No fireproofing was used, in the belief it was all shorn from the steel.
The result of their empirical experiment? 2 inches of deflection.
[...]
So, what to do?
Go virtual. Eight computer simulations were then ran, with increasingly unrealistic parameters, until, on the ninth try, they received the collapse that that they sought.
I got that -- DOWNHILL! OMG, too funny. You're as bad as that Yogurt in the Throat guy. How gullible do you think people are, anyway?
Originally posted by thedman
I got that -- DOWNHILL! OMG, too funny. You're as bad as that Yogurt in the Throat guy. How gullible do you think people are, anyway?
You seem to have problem understanding basic information - ie when
it is explained that a piece of the engine broke off on impact and rolled
downhil it means that the DAMN PIECE OF ENGINE BROKE OFF AND
ROLLED THERE! It is not part of some conspiracy plot - it is how it
happened!
Originally posted by thedman
It was piece of the engine fan - part in front of engine which sucks in
air. It broke off on impact and rolled DOWNHILL (you get that DOWNHILL!)
landing in catchbasin drain. Nothing unusual about that - rolling
downhill.
Originally posted by thedman
It was piece of the engine fan - part in front of engine which sucks in
air.
Small debris descended over Indian Lake and New Baltimore, about three and eight miles from the primary crash site, and an engine core was separated from the main impact crater by about 2000 feet.
Originally posted by Griff
Who's being untruthful here?
The 9/11 commission has drawn more attention for the testimony it has gathered than for the purpose it has set for itself....The commission itself, with its mandate, may have compromised its report before it is even delivered. That mandate is "to provide a 'full and complete accounting' of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future."
It sounds uncontroversial, reasonable, even admirable, yet it contains at least three flaws that are common to most such inquiries into past events. To recognize those flaws, it is necessary to understand the concept of the "black swan."
A black swan is an outlier, an event that lies beyond the realm of normal expectations. Most people expect all swans to be white because that's what their experience tells them; a black swan is by definition a surprise. Nevertheless, people tend to concoct explanations for them after the fact, which makes them appear more predictable, and less random, than they are. Our minds are designed to retain, for efficient storage, past information that fits into a compressed narrative. This distortion, called the hindsight bias, prevents us from adequately learning from the past.
It was the Engine Core and it was found 2000 feet away. I suggest you do some research before posting something.
Roving Engine
Claim: One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene who was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner."
FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.
Originally posted by thedman
I do research - unlike others on this site I don't get my information
from idiotic conspiracy pages......