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 Varemia
reply to post by jeichelberg
It's from the link in my previous post:
As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contractors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.
The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.
It's fairly simple stuff here. Not a lot to comprehend.
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
Contributes to soil erosion.
Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
Major chemical component of chemtrails
Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by waypastvne
Well, then you need to get right on the horn and tell all these engineering and architectural firms to immediately cease and desist this practice...do not waste this vital information on me...again, I am no expert...edit on 16-10-2011 by jeichelberg because: misspelled waste...
Thats also why when we load test an aircraft, we have to take a real plane, turn it up side down and place sandbags on the wings until it breaks.
Originally posted by TheMatrixusesYou
Now I like a few others here understand how Ron Paul feels like when he speaks the truth and no one hears because they are distracted by the argument between the two factions.
But I'll keep saying that there's no argument about building 7's collapse and since there's no argument, building 1 and 2's falls are guilty by proxy....Also keep in mind that building 7 is where the SEC was investigating all the corporations' hijinks like Enron, Arthur Anderson and MCI Worldcom.
Also keep in mind that building 7 is where the SEC was investigating all the corporations' hijinks like Enron, Arthur Anderson and MCI Worldcom.
Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by jeichelberg
.scale models could be reproduced and an attempt at replication could be made...instead, we get nothing...
You really should google Square Cube Law
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by jeichelberg
.scale models could be reproduced and an attempt at replication could be made...instead, we get nothing...
You really should google Square Cube Law
That is why I used paper supports and made them as weak as possible. You can't scale to the WTC without accurate distribution of mass data on the towers. So why isn't EVERYBODY demanding it? Why didn't all of the physicists demand it in 2002?
psikedit on 16-10-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jeichelberg
I am under no delusion that thermite was found...It was found...I have no idea what thermite does or does not do to steel...I only know it is used in some types of explosive charges...I also have no need to google the information you have presented...I am quite confident scale modeling is still used in applications across all sciences, including engineering...I have said what I have to say here and I am through...
Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by jeichelberg
.scale models could be reproduced and an attempt at replication could be made...instead, we get nothing...
You really should google Square Cube Law
That is why I used paper supports and made them as weak as possible. You can't scale to the WTC without accurate distribution of mass data on the towers. So why isn't EVERYBODY demanding it? Why didn't all of the physicists demand it in 2002?
psikedit on 16-10-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)
Your model fails under compression. The World Trade Centers failed under shear.
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by TheMatrixusesYou
Also keep in mind that building 7 is where the SEC was investigating all the corporations' hijinks like Enron, Arthur Anderson and MCI Worldcom.
Still and all, the investigations and subsequent prosecutions continued on....
There are such concepts as backing up data on computers, at many sites besides just one main location.
Furthermore, if one wishes to go down the road of "destroying evidence" (odd concept, in those cases, since the government seemed keen on prosecuting them), just having a building collapse seems like one of the most inefficient methods possible.
Wouldn't a raging fire on every floor, left unchecked for several days do a better job? Because, after a collapse, you have to guarantee that everything you wished destroyed, would not still be there to be found.
WTC 7 as a "planned" demo just fails the logic test, for those and other reasons....not to mention the facts dispute the "demolition theory" as well.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You are trying to compare my washers to floors in the WTC. I am making no such comparison. The washers are MASS that must be supported. The floors were not the only MASS in the WTC. You pancake people pretend the core wasn't there and don't explain how it got collapsed.
psik