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 exponent
Oh and rich23, are you really going to use the "well why don't controlled demolition companies just fly a plane into the building" argument? It is perhaps the single poorest argument ever produced by the truth movement.
Here is a small list why not
- Planes cost millions of dollars
- Flying a plane into a building will kill the pilot
- The location of the plane's impact cannot be sufficiently accurate
- The collapse of the building would be uncontrolled
Can you name a single reason that a controlled demolition company would use a plane over precisely placed explosives?
Originally posted by jprophet420
Watch 100 CD's and then re-evaluate. While its called 'into its own footprint' its not 100% directly falling only onto its exact footprint with zero debris anywhere else. Other CD's have a larger "debris footprint".
Same goes for the "symetrical collapse" logical fallacy. "Oh it wasnt 100% symetrical". Again watch 100 cd's. The collapse of all 3 towers are more symetrical than most cd's even tho thay aren't 100% symetrical.
en.wikipedia.org...
the commonly accepted process is that the damaged portion of the buildings failed, which allowed the section above the airplane impacts to fall onto the remaining structure below. Both buildings collapsed symmetrically and more or less straight down, though there was some tilting of the tops of the towers and a significant amount of fallout to the sides. As the collapse progressed, dust and debris could be seen shooting out of the windows several floors below the advancing destruction.
Owing to differences in the initial impacts, the collapses of the two towers were found to differ in some respects, but in both cases, the same sequence of events applies. After the impacts had severed exterior columns and damaged core columns, the loads on these columns were redistributed. The hat trusses at the top of each building played a significant role in this redistribution of the loads in the structure.
The impacts also dislodged some of the fireproofing from the steel, increasing its exposure to the heat of the fires. In the 102 minutes before the collapse of 1 WTC, the fires reached temperatures that – although well below the melting point – were high enough to weaken the core columns so that they underwent plastic deformation and creep from the weight of higher floors. The NIST report provides a model of the situation.
“ At this point, the core of WTC 1 could be imagined to be in three sections. There was a bottom section below the impact floors that could be thought of as a strong, rigid box, structurally undamaged and at almost normal temperature. There was a top section above the impact and fire floors that was also a heavy, rigid box. In the middle was the third section, damaged by the aircraft and weakened by heat from the fires. The core of the top section tried to move downward, but was held up by the hat truss. The hat truss, in turn redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. (p. 29) ”
The situation was similar in 2 WTC. In both towers, perimeter columns and floors were also weakened by the heat of the fires, causing the floors to sag and exerting an inward force on exterior walls of the building.
At 9:59 a.m., 56 minutes after impact, the sagging floors finally caused the eastern face of 2 WTC to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse; the section above the impact area then tilted in the direction of the failed wall. At 10:28 a.m., 102 minutes after the impact, the south wall of 1 WTC buckled, with similar consequences. After collapse ensued, the total collapse of the towers was inevitable due to the enormous weight of the towers above the impact areas.
A combination of three factors allowed the north tower to remain standing longer: the region of impact was higher (so the gravity load on the most damaged area was lighter), the speed of the plane was lower (so there was less impact damage), and the affected floors had received partially upgraded fire proofing.
Also lacking in all three WTC collapses are the signature explosion sounds that would have been heard literally all over lower Manhattan PRIOR to the collapses.
sorry but that alone puts another big hole in the CD idea. All "high power" explosives make a very large kaboom. and a whole series of kabooms is very unmistakable.
As Marvin the Martian said: "Where's the kaboom? There was suppose to be an earth-shattering KABOOM!"
Originally posted by jprophet420
the "kabooms" were reported on MSNBC's live broadcast. They had a terrorism expert on the show at the time (of collapse) that claimed it was CD, and pointed out the similarities.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by rich23
What do surplus airplanes have to do with Jones' paper?
Does the fact that you do not understand the paper or technical subjects force you to derail the thread and discuss old tanker aircraft?
Do you think the surplus aircraft were loaded with red chips of thermitic material?
Originally posted by rich23
Are you American by any chance? In the UK we do have this slight prejudice that Americans really don't get irony...
See, either you're being deliberately obtuse, or you're not getting the fact that I was taking the mickey.
...
Thank you for an entertaining post.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by rich23
I did read the thread in context. I was pointing out that surplus aircraft have nothing to do with Jones paper.