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 Darkwing01
reply to post by -PLB-
I will repeat it again (I wrote this 3 times or so by now), first the south perimeter wall failed.
I know you have SAID it, but "can you demonstrate it" is the real question.
Why do OS'ers consistently think that simply saying something constitutes proof? That is what causes the whole problem to begin with.
Prove it or don't bother saying it.
Originally posted by plube
yet i am still wrong in that according to you
Originally posted by samkent
If a landing gear can go through all those brick walls at the Pentagon, I imagine one could do severe damage to the core at WTC.
Contrary to their own interpretation of events, in section 6.10.4 of the Final Report, the NIST
authors note that
“….. At any given location, the duration of temperatures near 1,000 ºC was about 15 min
to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 ºC or below.”
(NCSTAR 1, 129)
The problem then is how could an entire floor truss section get to 700 ºC when “at any given
location” temperatures were only briefly very hot? Also bear in mind that multiple trusses would
have to fail simultaneously before any significant effect on the perimeter columns could be
expected. This is because the trusses are tied together by the floor structure and the external
columns are strongly interlocked by the spandrels.
Moreover, the simulation predicted other component failures at particular temperatures:
“At 566 ºC, the interior truss seat bolts sheared off, without loss of vertical support. At
670 ºC, the gusset plate at the exterior truss seat fractured, followed by shearing of the
exterior seat bolt. At 730 ºC, the truss walked off the exterior truss seat.” (NCSTAR 1-
Once again, if these temperatures were sufficient to cause such destruction, why did the floor
truss tests exhibit none of these failure modes given laboratory steel temperatures and exposure
times exceeded those in the simulations? The finding in the simulation that the truss endconnections
failed is strikingly inconsistent with the claim NIST relied upon that the sagging
floor pulled the perimeter columns inward. Despite the contradiction of their simulation by the
tests, the NIST investigators made no attempt to adjust their conclusion.
“The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the
middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a
preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would
likely remain standing. The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and
Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower.” (NCSTAR 1, 144)
strange that they just for no reason choose the most severe model when their own real world tests do not replicate the model.
also this is the point that the NIST report stops.....Nist only gos up to point point of initiation.....but goes no further and then relies on Bazant to proceed through the progressive collapse senario.
Lets look at Bazant and Zhou
Bazant says that crush up would only occur after crush down.....well then they realized after video analysis this was not the case...and lo and behold they came up with something else to qualify the error they had made...
see go here for a copy....i look at all things as best i am able.
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis1
Zdeneˇk P. Bazˇant, F.ASCE,2 and Yong Zhou3
now if one would care to look....but unlikely that some will....
now please go ahead and take a look at the full analysis....what harm can it do to become informed.....
lets keep it up....we may not succeed in changing things...but we just might succeed in helping proplr to question what they are being told.....then we do fail in how so many people are being mysteriously taken away from us for speaking out......As the sign says....STOP THE MADNESS
Imagination does not equal proof, samkent.
Please, prove how much core damage that you allege the planes caused to WTC 1 and 2.
You missed the point why I posted the explanation by NIST. I didn't post that to prove anything, I posted it so show that the mast moving first is in no way in conflict with the explanation given by NIST.
I will repeat it again (I wrote this 3 times or so by now), first the south perimeter wall failed. That load got redistributed to the core and other perimeter walls. It is not specified which support structure failed next exactly. So the scenario is:
Floor sagging (not expansion) -> South perimeter failure -> Core failure/Other perimeter failure -> Global failure
Simply put, you are wrong. The south wall can fail without any movement in the top section. In fact, when only the south wall fails, you expect there to be no movement, as the core and the 3 other walls are still holding everything in place.
Originally posted by plube
I know I know i am on about tilting...but not once have you answered an easy question with a yes or no....was the building tipping at the time the antenna was dropping....yes/no
Still, it doesn't look like the complete top was tilting before full floor failure.
You can see on Darkwings video that tilt of the full top section very likely did not happen before full floor failure. You can not see this on your video. After concluding this, tilt is no longer an issue of debate. That means the conversation moves on. I abandoned the argument.
I agreed that it did not look like tilting happened before all support columns failed.
I have written about 4 times already that I abandoned the tilting theory
long text with images cut out