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.

 

Simulation shows why World Trade Center towers fell: it's the heat

page: 23
12
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 
H Val,
Sorry I was doing an edit for my last post. Thanks for the link, I had seen a good part of that report, but either missed or forgot exactly how the transition was made. I've also seen pics of the boards at the shafts posted, ironically at a site of someone who is pushing for there being concrete instead. I'll have to look again for that.

In the meantime i've found this link about areas where heat damaged steel was found,
www.911blogger.com...

[edit on 27-9-2009 by smurfy]




posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
One major problem with the National Geographic simulation is that they do not take into account the 40+ horizontal steel beam that jutted up through the center of the building. Where did they go? Even in the worst conditions some of them should have survived the destruction - but not one did. Very peculiar. Also, as has been oft repeated, the temperature of the fuel burning would not get hot enough to do much damage to the beams anyway. If it ever did get that hot then why were survivors standing on the very floors the plane impacted. Everyone should have been dead from the extreme heat. I could go on but in the long run the questions remain. Those buildings should not have collapsed like that and, obviously, the only reason for WTC 7 to collapse is to eliminate the financila records for Enron and that ilk. But that's another conspiracy...or is it?



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
This is what I get for writing this stuff up while I am working. In regards to my previous prompt - horizontal beams should have been VERTICAL beams.



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Maj35t1cI2
 


was that sarcasm or are you just ignorant to the times in history it has happened? Just wondering.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 



Noun: causal agent
Any entity that produces an effect or is responsible for events or results.


The simulation shows heat as the casual agent. If its not the same (heat) then its from an outside source. What is the outside source in the case of wtc7? NIST says it was not falling debris, and there wasn't sufficient heat.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


It would be safe to assume, that a plane that is making a transcontinetal flight of over 3000 miles, would be loaded with alot of fuel for the trip. This occurred to me the day of the attacks, after it was pointed out that all planes were flying from coast to coast.

Regardless, according to news footage, most of the jetfuel from the second crash, flight 175, seemed to be consumed in the blast, and people reported it being sprayed everywhere outside the wtc. So there still does not seem to be enough fuel to keep a fire hot enough to do the trick of collapsing the whole thing.

The amusing little computer simulations and models prove nothing to me, you can tip a model anyway you like. I would consider the findings far more legit had they come from a thorough study and investigation of the actual metal and debris from the world trade center.

Oh wait, they can't, it all got melted and shipped off to China pretty quick.




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Here, you can see WTC7 being well with the confines of being hit by debris:


Figure 1-7 Schematic depiction of areas of collapse debris impact, based on aerial photographs and documented damage. Striped areas indicate predominant locations of exterior steel columns. Inner circles indicate approximate radius of exterior steel columns and other heavy debris. Outer circles indicate approximate radius of aluminum cladding and other lighter debris. Heavy Xs show where exterior steel columns were found outside the predominate debris areas.

Debris from the collapsing towers, some of it still on fire, rained down on surrounding buildings, causing structural damage and starting new fires (Figure 1-7). The sudden collapse of each tower sent out air pressure waves that spread dust clouds of building materials in all directions for many blocks. The density and pressure of the dust clouds were strong enough to carry light debris and lift or move small vehicles and break windows in adjacent buildings for several blocks around the WTC site. Most of the fires went unattended as efforts were devoted to rescuing those trapped in the collapsed towers. The 22-story Marriott World Trade Center Hotel (WTC 3) was hit by a substantial amount of debris during both tower collapses. Portions of WTC 3 were severely damaged by debris from each tower collapse, but progressive collapse of the building did not occur. However, little of WTC 3 remained standing after the collapse of WTC 1. WTC 4, 5, and 6 had floor contents and furnishings burn completely and suffered significant partial collapses from debris impacts and from fire damage to their structural frames. WTC 7, a 47-story building that was part of the WTC complex, burned unattended for 7 hours before collapsing at 5:20 p.m. The falling debris also damaged water mains around the WTC site at the following locations:

  • 20-inch main on West Street, closed to the slurry wall, about midway between Vesey Street and Liberty Street
  • 20-inch main along the Financial Center north of the South Link Bridge
  • 20-inch main at the corner of Liberty Street and West Street
  • main in front of the West Street entrance to 90 West
  • 24-inch main on Vesey Street, near West Street
    main at the corner of Vesey Street and West Broadway, near the subway station
    main at the southwest edge of 30 West Broadway
  • 16-inch main inside the slurry wall

Damaged mains were located after the collapses, but access was impeded by the collapse debris. The timeline of the major events is summarized in Table 1.1. The times and seismic data were recorded at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) of Columbia University. The signal duration and Richter Scale magnitudes were included to indicate the relative magnitudes of energy transmitted through the ground between the events. Figure 1-8 shows the accelograms recorded by the observatory during the events.

SOURCE:www.designaids.com...

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Here, you can see WTC7 being well with the confines of being hit by debris:




no more than the verizon building right next door, and much less than banker's trust building, or 130 cedar st./90 west st.
but, anyway, you are contradicting the NIST report which says the building debris had nothing to do with the collapse. it was normal office fires, according to them.

you're still touting last years debunker memo.

the banker's trust building should be a pile of rubble, if this diagram is supposed to show anything about debris critically damaging buildings.


did that little greek orthodox church survive? info overload has set in.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


When did I bring up the NIST? Or even better yet, what does the NIST have to do with what I was saying except it's on the same subject and has something to say about the collapse? And thirdly "debunkers memo"? Am I to assume that you think I am a part of some group?
Also remember we are talking about different designs and different locations in reference to the collapses.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by billybob
 


When did I bring up the NIST?


You don't have to; it was the only and final legally-authorized (or otherwise) forensic investigative report into the collapse of WTC7. What it says either flies, or else further investigation is needed. Well, except that NIST themselves have already said in a press conference that further investigation is needed in the case of WTC7, they're just not going to do it apparently...


Or even better yet, what does the NIST have to do with what I was saying except it's on the same subject and has something to say about the collapse?


Unless you're just Mr. UberGenius who has everything about 9/11 already figured out personally and all by yourself, who else would you naturally look to for a certain standard of information but the legal authorities charged with providing it?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Or perhaps I am not using the NIST as a measuring stick for my theories on 9/11. Just because it exists does not mean I have to refer to it. It's funny that seems to be the popular assumption despite the fact I only mention it in the capacity that I did in the post you are responding to.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


you are implying that the building debris from the collapses somehow compromised building seven.
i pointed out that this line of debunking has been debunked by the lead debunkers themselves, ie. the NIST.

you are touting last year's debunking memo, whether you know it or not. i don't care who's in what club. i'm in the pure information club, and that puts me beyond the ken of cliques.




posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


I think I will retain my skepticism on that last claim. Sorry.
But, I do have to ask this, do you think that the NIST is a honest document?

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Or perhaps I am not using the NIST as a measuring stick for my theories on 9/11. Just because it exists does not mean I have to refer to it.


No, but remember we are asking for a more thorough investigation, and many/most of us here have seen all the same photographs and more that accompanied NIST and are well aware of the extent of damage to the building, at least as much as anyone can be without full photos of the lower floors of the South face (since there are severally partially obscured photos). So we are aware of how much damage there was, and NIST even moreso (with access to thousands of photos they never published for the rest of us). If they could have used the debris damage as a good excuse for its collapse, they probably would have.


It's funny that seems to be the popular assumption despite the fact I only mention it in the capacity that I did in the post you are responding to.


What's funny to me is you think we should take you as an authority when I know you don't have anything to make a strong case. Unless you have seen photos that I still haven't. Which would be cool, but I doubt is the case.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


What exactly does this have to do if anything with the "the NIST contradicts you" line of thinking that started this tangent? Especially in light of the fact that not even you think that the NIST is a reliable document?

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I'll explain for you one more time. NIST did the only investigation, not you. You don't know what in the hell you're talking about, or so I assume, until I see your money where your mouth is, ie all sources and documentation for any particular claim. Otherwise I don't simply have faith in you. That NIST found no merit to the idea that debris caused the symmetrical collapse, even though they were hellbent to find a gravity-driven solution, is icing on my cake of not believing gravity had anything to do with it. But that's just my personal opinion; what isn't my opinion is that the only investigation was a piss-poor one and we need another. And YOU never did it.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You assume much. And I have attempted to provide such. Repeatedly, but selective memory and perception seems to rule.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


That FEMA diagram you posted isn't proof of crap. Do you have any photos of the South facade of the building you'd like to share, that show any damage either myself or maybe the NIST team have neglected? Not that you care what NIST thinks, I know, neither do I, but they are the natural standard since they are the ONLY investigators so far.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


How exactly am I supposed to produce complete pictures of the south facade when none exist from that particular time given the dynamics of the situation?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join