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.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
I have discussed the ins and outs of this subject with career Professional Engineers (P.E. designation is a coveted thing), and nobody believes that a kerosene fire compromised the integrity of that steel structure.
Nobody believes that the top part of that building would have fallen without torqueing on all three axes.
Nobody believes that the hundreds of beams all gave way simultaneously and thus allowed the "pancake" that we saw.
It still would have taken at least 12 hours to compromise the steel
As some collapsed, others would have held on, and the top portion of that building would have began to torque and twist as more and more beams became overloaded.
Some sections would have ripped apart at the pre-designed junctions meant to giveway
and others would have sprung back elastically.
The building would have swayed violently,
The top part might have fallen to one side,
and the subsequent fatigue on the existing beams might have lead to further collapse in the opposite direction
If we give up all those unlikely scenarios, and we say maybe it did initiate the collapse, we still get a much different looking, violent, and uncoordinated collapse fraught with much swaying, buckling, and generalized disarray!
Scripting? Days in advance?
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Joey Canoli
I notice you've never, ever bothered to present any actual evidence to validate the NIST report or any other official report. All you can do is make personal attacks?
Originally posted by bsbray11
I asked for proof of NIST's hypothesis that the trusses sagged and pulled the perimeter columns inward, and you were the one who start giving me all kinds of irrelevant garbage about fireproofing and everything but offering evidence for their hypothesis.
14. The collapse sequence for WTC 1 proposed by NIST includes, aircraft impact, core weakening, floor sagging and disconnection, inward bowing of the south wall, and collapse initiation. If the floors are disconnecting from the south wall, how were the floors able to exert forces on the exterior walls to cause the inward bowing?
Analyses of the composite floor system under fire exposures determined from fire dynamics simulations and thermal analyses, predicted sagging subsequent to truss web diagonal buckling and failure of some seated connections (see NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). However, the vast majority of the connections remained intact. Further, the shear studs that attached the floor slab to the spandrel, and the diagonal steel struts that connected the truss top chord to the intermediate columns were also capable of transferring inward pull forces. Thus, the sagging floors were capable of exerting an inward pull on the exterior columns and spandrel beams.
I don't have an issue with the fact that NIST never proved their hypothesis. But you apparently do, when you come onto conspiracy theory forums to preach like everything has been figured out already and we're all wrong, no further investigation needed.
Do you see what I'm saying now?
I don't have an issue with the fact that NIST never proved their hypothesis
But you apparently do,
preach like everything has been figured out already
and we're all wrong,
no further investigation needed.
The thing I do remember is the molten steel in the rubble.
And if you don't think the NIST report is conclusive, why are you even being antagonistic to the OP on this thread?
why are you even being antagonistic to the OP on this thread?
Originally posted by okbmd
I've never voiced an opinion on whether the NIST report was conclusive or inconclusive . The NIST report is an hypothesis . I don't recall ever having seen anyone from either side claim that it was conclusive , as everyone knows that an hypothesis is never concluded until it becomes proven as fact . Therefore , your point is moot .
The only issue I have with the OP , and the title of this thread , is that there is the assumption that anyone who disagrees with the TM has reached that point by digesting material from the NIST report or some other fanciful "OS" report , which I have shown is not the case .
It is common practice on this board , to defend the NIST in one thread and then shred it in another .
The report was based on probabilities . Probabilities do not equate to conclusions . Where is the problem with that ?
Who are any of you arguing with , anyway ? Who , in this thread or any other , has stated that they were convinced solely by the NIST , or any other report ?