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.
Yet not once even in other countries where the codes may be more lax
has a single steel frame building totally collapsed due to office fires.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
a reply to: neutronflux
The evidence of demolition is proved by
NIST's own admission of free fall occurring for at least
100 feet. Impossible without demo
originally posted by: ventian
Just jumping in to provide my .02, but I am no engineer and I admittedly made up my mind years ago on this subject.
9/11 Commissioners Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton believe it was set up to fail.
originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: cashlink
Yes the NIST report is credible.
originally posted by: SecretSector
originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: cashlink
Yes the NIST report is credible.
While not an engineer, but an ordnance veteran (demolition and disposal), my first impression watching 911 live was, "controlled--".
Later, having watched the report, and reading the particulars, my first impression was who paid them to put that out there. For average public Joe and Jane, it's understandable. For veterans in the ordnance business, I would have been embarrassed, to say the least, to go on national television and make a fool of myself like they did.
By the way, a former NIST employee revealed that the report was manufactured, and key evidence was not considered, not mentioned in the report.
ADDENDUM:
A former CIA agent, on his death bed, revealed he led a small team to rig building 7 weeks before 9/11.
originally posted by: Jacobu12
NIST lied they claim there was no eyewitnesses to loud bangs and molten steel. We know that's crap and dishonest.
originally posted by: neutronflux
originally posted by: Jacobu12
NIST lied they claim there was no eyewitnesses to loud bangs and molten steel. We know that's crap and dishonest.
Prove there was molten steel. Dr Wood went through and debunked that molten aluminum cannot glow. Then the molten material would be mixed with plastics, lead, copper, ash, and smoldering material.
Which conspiracist has the truth? Wood and Dustification? Gage and fizzle no flash bombs?
Another truth movement narrative that is false.
originally posted by: Jacobu12
NIST lied they claim there was no eyewitnesses to loud bangs