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 The_Zomar
The site you posted just backs up our story that steel doesn't melt at the temperatures in which the buildings burned. What your report states is that the buildings were designed incorrectly.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by Nutter
That's two totally different collapse initiations.
...but they were both caused by the exact same chain of events- the aircraft impacts spilling burning fuel that set the office contents on fire, heating the support infrastructure to structural failure.
"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.
"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other." ...
"The buildings would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said.
"But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."
Once the steel frame on one floor had melted, it collapsed downwards, inflicting massive forces on the already-weakened floor below.
...which brings me to my next question- just what are you using as a definition of a "pancake collapse"? TO me, it's when floor A falls, hitting floor B below it with enough force to cause its supports to fail, making the wreckage of both A and B fall together and hit floor C, causing ITS support to fail, and so on, in a chain reaction. This is literally what every person in the world saw happen when the towers collapsed, so by definition the towers did fall in a pancake collapse.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by Ainu Basque
The evidence of an “inside job” is evident in the attacks themselves. The operation was too sophisticated to be carried-out without either state-sponsorship or state-complicity; either our own government or governments abroad. Never forget, spy-craft and treachery is still a well-performed art in our government and governments abroad. It is a two-way street of watchers, reporters and operatives.
I see nothign particularly sophisticated in the idea that an aircraft could be intentionally flown into a target as a suicide attack, nor do I see anything particularly sophisticated in the idea that someone with a lot of money can purchase training to learn the basic operation procedures of a large passenger jet. The idea that fanatical religious zealots might get it in their heads that goign out and killing people will please god, is not only unsophisticated, it's been around for 5,000 years. The only thing that's sophisticated here is that someone was able to put all these ideas together, but seeing the ones who came up with the idea and pulled it off were for the most part college educated, intelligent people with a lot of money, it's not really THAT sophisticated.
Am I the only one here who remembers how the entire Muslim world went bananas simply becuase a newspaper in Denmark printed cartoons about Mohammed? Thinking out their actions rationally all the way through isn't exactly their forte.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Ainu Basque
One of the many problems with your argument from incredulity is that it is not completely factual. The hijackers did not attack military targets. And before you say it, the Pentagon is not a traditional "military" target. It has no combat assests or defense assets. It is an administrative building. The WTC and whatever the fourth target was were probably not military targets.
The funding? House two dozen guys for a year, some flight training, boxcutters and plane tickets. They weren't building an aircraft carrier. At its core it was a civilian airplane hijacking. Our military is not designed nor tasked with preventing crimes in the civilian sphere. Plenty of planes have been hijacked, you would have to believe that all American planes were impervious to hijacking to think 9/11 was impossible.
As to the number of Al Quadea - what difference could it possibly make?
Originally posted by bsbray11
So what?
The whole reason you say you think your beliefs are right is because you think these reports are right. The reports were supposed to figure out -- even in a technical -- why the towers collapsed. You are staring at two technical theories that totally contradict each other in the physics. One is deflection outwards from one mechanism, the other is buckling inwards by a more extreme mechanism.
So even though we haven't been privy to all the data and photos and physical evidence available to (some of) these federal guys, they still couldn't find any obvious evidence as far as one over the other. So what evidence can you, or me, possibly come up with to prove either of them, either?
Here is a documented list of sources for the original theory of "the core (columns) must have melted": 911research.wtc7.net...
The British were even saying it "must have melted":
No, we did not all see this, because there is no reason to believe that could have or did happen.
The buildings exploded outwards. In all 4 directions. Leaving most of the mass outside of the footprints, not inside like a pancake collapse would.
Not to mention the floors weren't all single discrete units, "floor 1 falls on floor 2, floor 1 and 2 then fall on floor 3..." That is a totally inaccurate way of how the physics and the REAL math behind this thing would work. It is not simple addition repeated over and over. As I said earlier on this thread, each truss in a floor had its own independent connections to columns on either side of it. There is NO reason to believe they should all fail simultaneously and land like a big pancake on the floor below!
When you basically said "that's what we all saw, so that's what it was"... Well I have to just say you sold me on that one. Nothing else made sense up until that, but when you landed that one... It touched me deeply.
Originally posted by Ainu Basque
My point in sophistication is not in the operation, but execution and success-rate. Solely by the logic of the government, then we must be extremely under-defended with little intelligence of what is going on in Ghost Land. We know this is not true. Our military and intelligence services are the best in the world, hands down. The Administration did have prior warning from within the government, from other foreign governments and intelligence services. This is known information.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by Ainu Basque
My point in sophistication is not in the operation, but execution and success-rate. Solely by the logic of the government, then we must be extremely under-defended with little intelligence of what is going on in Ghost Land. We know this is not true. Our military and intelligence services are the best in the world, hands down. The Administration did have prior warning from within the government, from other foreign governments and intelligence services. This is known information.
In that case, I strongly urge you to read the 9/11 commission report, as it documents in great detail how the "greatest military and intelligence services in the world" were largely crippled and/or slipping on banana peels in the period up to, and during, the attack. Intelligence unit A was forbidden to share information with intelligence unit B, orders and instructions weren't handed down through the chain of command properly, people in key positions had crapped out on their responsibilities, political correctness had gotten in the way of common sense, how the war on drugs distracted us away from paying attention to other threats, and so on. There is a cover up, all right, namely, the cover up on how deeply flawed our intelligence and defense systems really are.
You may not agree with the details that the report states, but you will at least have an answer to the question to how we were blindsided so badly on 9/11. Never attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by stupidity, as the saying goes.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by Nutter
That's two totally different collapse initiations.
...but they were both caused by the exact same chain of events- the aircraft impacts spilling burning fuel that set the office contents on fire, heating the support infrastructure to structural failure.
So what?
The whole reason you say you think your beliefs are right is because you think these reports are right.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
To which I asked, just how do they contradict each other.
The fact that they differ in exactly which part of the building had collapsed first
As I said, NY police department helicopters flying eye level to the impact zones of the towers radioed eyewitness accounts of seeing support columns glowing red from the fires and looked as if they were about to crash.
I see this as a direct support for Eagar's account, since it would have had to be the perimeter support columns they saw, the area in which Eagar says the initial structural failure was.
I'm not saying that the NIST report concernign buckling floors isn't correct. I'm explaining why I originally subscribed to Eagar's report.
If you're going where I think you're going with this, then I would ask, "which is the more likely original source the rank and file conspiracy theorists are getting the idea of "melted steel" from- interviews with esoteric British structrual engineers, or all these conspiracy web sites?
You are splitting your hairs might thin, here. The reason the buildings "exploded" is becuase floor A hit floor B below, making it collapse and causing the wreckage of both A & B to fall on floor C below, and so on
As I said earlier on this thread, each truss in a floor had its own independent connections to columns on either side of it. There is NO reason to believe they should all fail simultaneously and land like a big pancake on the floor below!
No floor contributed to the support of any other floor, as most other buildings are designed.
There were no other columns supporting the floors anywhere between the inner core and the outer perimeter, so yes, the floors *were* all single discrete units from each other.
We all saw the initial point of collapse was in the area where the planes impacted, and we all saw that the towers cascaded down floor by floor from that point. This is irrefutable and cannot be debated. If the concept "touches you deeply", well, fine, but any scenario attempting to explain the collapse necessarily has to take that fact into account.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Because of the tilt we were just talking about this.
Valhall has even posted several diagrams -- maybe even to you, now that I mention it -- illustrating the asymmetrical loading conditions that tilt created.
I shouldn't have to explain how that tilt created asymmetrical loading
Ok, here's a hint: compression vs. tension. Different sides of the building.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Valhall has even posted several diagrams -- maybe even to you, now that I mention it -- illustrating the asymmetrical loading conditions that tilt created.
yes, i remember her delusional posts. they involved the upper part rotating and creating tension on one side and compression on the other? so iow, she proposed an rigid block.
I shouldn't have to explain how that tilt created asymmetrical loading
it woud be hilarious to see you try to show that, cuz you'd then have to treat the upper portion as a rigid block too, that was incapable of being destroyed from the bottom up.
oh yes, i was correct. gravity didn't exert any force one side of the building, according to valhall. and you agree to it.
Originally posted by bsbray11
The members in tension (opposite the tilt) were NOT experiencing a net load from gravity.
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
jthomas, with all your trolling here, your constant assertions that nothing has been demonstrated don't even mean anything anymore.
We have all seen you put people on ignore for requesting the same evidence from you that you demand from others.
Whenever anyone asks you to prove ANYTHING using official reports, you can never do it, and try to shift the burden of proof instead and talk a bunch of trash.
Your tactics are old as hell and nobody even cares what you think anymore.
We can go at it again right here, just to demonstrate that you can't put your money where your mouth is.
Where in the NIST report do they prove their hypothesis, ie that sagging trusses exerted significant force on exterior columns? Where is a lab test that reproduces it, or any other verifying data?
Everyone watch -- if jthomas even responds, you won't have an answer anyway. Just more trash talk and trying to shift the burden to me proving a negative. Just watch and see if I'm wrong! I have been asking this single question for years and he has yet to formulate a response that doesn't consist of calling me various names from his pet collection.
Seriously, his posts should be moderated when all he is doing is ranting about "deniers" and this-and-that collection of slurs.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
I don't care if you have a piece of I-beam from one of the towers, it stopped being evidence the moment you or another person removed it from it's location.
Originally posted by jthomas
The burden of proof is not only on your shoulders to refute the NIST report, it also remains on your shoulders to demonstrate the legitimacy of your "questions" to begin with.
Originally posted by Ainu Basque
I'm asking questions not looking for an answers but to create thought. Instead of thought, you are parroting the government line. The reason you mentioned is a blatant cop-out. Let's say what you're saying is true, then why was the investigation underfunded, deceived and lacked any real authority?
Simply, they wanted to hide something...which is an obstruction of justice. Beyond treasonous, illegal and plain immoral! Not just incompetence but complicity which boils down to the same thing!
This country will never be right again until a complete reckoning is made in regards to 9/11. Until you understand this, and see the larger picture, I fail to see where else this discussion can go.