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.

 

National Geographic - 9/11 Science and Conspiracy Special 8/31/09

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by the angel of light 67
 


Thermal Expansion is made up?
Are you serious?



No, the concept of thermal expansion is far older than 9/11. How NIST tries to stretch it until it means something supernatural than they have created something new. Hint "thermal expansion." Do you know what a hint is?




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
In the preview video for the National Geographic documentary, he says the steel collumns are unprotected.

This is not true!

The core collumns had concrete covering!

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by the angel of light 67
 


Thermal Expansion is made up?
Are you serious?

boy oh boy I can think of quite a few engineers that would strongly disagree with you. And thermal expansion is nothing new. Why do you think steel beams are coated in fire proofing?



Oh! oh! I got it teach!!! Why are they coated in fireproofing?
I got it, I got it!!! SO buildings like BUILDING SEVEN won't fall down.
AM I right, am I right teach



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 



Make a grown man talk out of his head ( your friend Rummy.)


Out of that entire rant, this is the only bit I could even begin to understand. (and only the part in parenthesis).

I happen to think "Rummy", along with almost all of players from the Bush years, are douchebags. (Colin Powell, excepted. There are a few other good ones too, just not on the top of my head.)

And none of them are smart enough to have pulled this off, as a "planned event" at all. They're the idiots who missed the signs, because of their incredible arrogance, and total ineptitude.



So I take it you do not subscribe to their ideas of weapons of mass destruction stock piled in Irag as well?
Blaming Sadam Hussain of being a chum of Al Qaeda ?
Invading Iraq when their was not one single Iraqi mentioned in the entire 911 debacle?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Let me ask you, Mr Expert, do you ha anything beyond high school science? How many books have you read on the subjects you assume knowledge of?


Mike


What a wonderful website this is. We have managed to gather experts in every field from Plaedians to Bigfoot. These 9/11 threads are most entertaining because they basically all say the same things over and over again going back as far as I have been able to read so far. No ground has been made in either direction. I have enjoyed so much expertise that it amazes me when I happen across gems like this. The best level of measuring someone's knowledge and understanding of something is merely, how many books about it they have read. Who cares what kind of formal education or hands on experience someone has. This is the INTERNET! All the really really smart people forgo all that and just read stuff.

edit to add: Please do not bother with all the condescension that usually accompanies new posters. I have been reading here a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. I just never got stuck waiting so long that I got bored enough to register. Save it.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Boy Donny, do you have a LOT to catch up on. Like try reading into the official fire exposure limit for fire-proofing. Usually most are rated for a few hours. NOT for 7 hours. Also, some was knocked off the beams on impact from debris from the South Tower collapse.

also there was no real firefighting effort later in the day since there was no hope for the building. And lets not forget damage to one critical beam. The rest was thermal expansion and creep of the steel beams exposed to fire. Donny, please if you are going to act incredulous, then please at least be SOMEWHAT informed of the facts.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Actually I know Griff well and he didn't agree with Bazant's conclusions.



That thread was specifically about collapse continuation. He stated that he agrees with his maths, etc. No where does he say that he disagrees with the conclusion that the collapse would continue, that I can find. Nowhere has he stated that "the collapse defied physics by collapsing through the path of most resistance", or any other similar stupidity.

However, he clearly states that he disagrees with NIST's initiation. This is clearly a different scenario than continuation.

So again, I'll ask. What in your c.v. would trump the collective experience of those that have clearly demonstrated expertise?



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by the angel of light 67

No, the concept of thermal expansion is far older than 9/11. How NIST tries to stretch it until it means something supernatural than they have created something new. Hint "thermal expansion." Do you know what a hint is?


But how was it stretched out so much? How exactly? because as far as I know, most of the thermal expansion was done to the trusses, since these are the most susceptible to heat. Now I fail to see how that is "stretched out" into something supernatural. Everyone in the firefighting and engineering business know, trusses are very dangerous in large fires.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by the angel of light 67

Actually, if you read what is written it simply says that NIST came up with some new laws of physics. It does not say that NIST defied the laws of physics, it simply says they made up new ones. Before you go responding to me with links you cannot understand, please see "thermal expansion."



You're all over the map, mate. Try reading for context. The discussion was clearly about 1 and 2, and now you're bringing up TE, which isn't a major part of that collapse scenario.

I'll also add that in another thread that I read when I was researching just who this guy is, this guy Griff responded that he agrees that they must design to protect against TE, and that he himself calculated that the floor beam in question ( building 7 ) would have expanded 4", IIRC. So again, yet another troofer that is trumped by another troofer that has a demonstrated ability and expertise in the area.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Oh! oh! I got it teach!!! Why are they coated in fireproofing?
I got it, I got it!!! SO buildings like BUILDING SEVEN won't fall down.
AM I right, am I right teach


No, you're incorrect.

They get fire protection so that the fire brigades have enough time to go fight the fires before the buildings are in danger of collapse.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Hey Joey, you might be interested in this video on progressive collapse:




two very interesting videos showing progressive collapse, without explosives. Feel free to use these at your pleasure!



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You're all over the map, mate. Try reading for context. The discussion was clearly about 1 and 2, and now you're bringing up TE, which isn't a major part of that collapse scenario.


You are a delight. Do you read for context? You have already been corrected a few times so let me jump on the bandwagon. The discussion, as I followed it, was about NIST and their misrepresentation of natural laws. You needed some clarification and 'thermal expansion' was raised as an example. Did I miss something here? Now that your assumptions have been settled and things explained and re-explained to you, you try to just wave off the entire concept of failed physics in the NIST report. Interesting tactic. I cannot wait to see where it goes.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


That was a mistake in reporting by the BBC.
At the time (which was only two days after 9/11) there was no actual check of the facts as the events were sill new. The inital report was corrected later on.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


Columns at WTC not protected by concrete - buildings built prior to it
under 1938 Fire Code required 2-4" inches concrete or terracotta
to protect underlying steel. WTC was built under revised codes - even
then Port Authorithy did not have to follow it as govt entity.

WTC steelwork was coated with Sprayon Fire Resisitive Materials (SFRM)
at first asbestos fibers, later after asbestos was banned mineral fibers
from melted rock. Cement was added as binder and materials sprayed out from hose. Made under name BLAZE SHIELD. Material was never
tested before being used at WTC - applied only 1/2 thick. Later increased
to 1 1/2 in as floors were renovated.

Material was very friable and easily peeled away - found that even air
movement from HVAC would dislodge it over time.

Fireproofing material in area was dislodged by impact and debris thrown
by impact leaving bare steel

Best book on subject is CITY IN THE SKY by Eric Lipton/Jamie Glanz



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join