It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So the bomb in '93 did almost no damage so it was not the heat or concussive force. These planes were full of unaccounted for fuel that burned off outside the building in the explosion. We already ruled out a hotter stronger explosion so it wasn't that. The fuel made the planes much heavier right? But then according to the engineers and the video, the building should basically let the plane enter and sail through so then no matter how heavy it was, the plane was not going to cause more or less damage that way.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
makes no sense in regards to what you posted about the measuring equipment, the 93 damage or to the airliner impacts.
Originally posted by Lillydale
I have no idea how to make it any more simple. The engineers claimed that the building was designed so that a plane smashing into it would basically sail through and be shredded instead of really impacting the main structure.
You are assuming things here Lillydale. Or "just saying things", as you like to accuse others of. The structural design is calculated in such a way that the force of the object of a certain mass will not cause enough damage to the integrity of the building as to make it fail immediately. No one considers the shredding of the plane that you claim. The important thing is HOW the different structural components will share the load that will be added to them after the failure of other supporting structure. And YES, the inner structure is damaged in this calculations. The outer structure takes the resulting load.
Originally posted by rush969
reply to post by Lillydale
To make it more clear. Buildings are not designed to shread airplanes.
Structural calculations must deal with the possibility of a plane crash in all high rises. And the structure must be able to resist the impact. And fire protection on the other hand is calculated for fires brought about by short circuits, office supplies catching on fire, stuff like that, but not airplanes exploding when crashing against the building. (Or being used like weapons or missiles, at least not until 9/11.)
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Seventh, I couldn't help noticing that in your latest batch of pictures the sky in the top two has dramatically changed colour.
Could you explain why this might be?
Originally posted by On the level
I dont know how anyone can look at all of the evidence and still believe the official story. It beggars belief and makes me sick to my stomach. I hope one day the people really responsible are brought to justice however like JFK I doubt it. The buildings where brought down as a catalyst for the wars we are now losing simple as that
So when I post a copy of a 1912 newspaper article quoting Bruce Ismay as saying the Titanic is unsinkable, will you start looking for the dastardly fellow who put the iceberg in her path? Or did someone wire the hull with explosives?
Someone saying a building could withstand multiple airliners crashing into it, does not make it true.
Really is quite obvious that in the absence of Condoleezza Rice`s promise of incoming evidence, (as the deadline has now just gone and her missing it by a mere 8 years and 1 month, still counting) that instead of being able to back up the OS with raw facts, the only stance left is bombing threads armed with self opinions and absolutely nothing else...