It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Changes in the last year

page: 9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Wanting to have all the money in the world is not the same thing as having the ability to get all the money in world, even is such a thing were conceptually possible.

Not realizing that difference is naive.

I'm aware of the difference, but I'm not looking for unattainable evidence, just a concise and coherent alternate explanation for the day's events. Literally within the last day we've had a rekindling of the 'no-planes' theory in a couple of threads here. That should give you an indication of just how widespread current theories are. If there really was convincing evidence, it should be easy to resolve most of these with a consistent approach. Somehow this doesn't seem to work.


And the key claim of how the collapse initiated relies on a presumed property of how the steel interacts with fire. That is the corner stone of the building (as it were), and it was because of that corner-stone that further physical tests were not conducted.

This is one of those points in an argument where if it fails every subsequent point in the argument is rendered invalid.

I don't think you've actually read the report, because what you say here makes no sense. NIST had to go outside of the US to find a large enough fire facility and their tests couldn't possibly replicate the conditions in the towers unless they built a large section of multiple floors.

They tested the interaction with fire so that they could validate their computer models. It's exactly how car companies test their models. They spend months if not years modelling many crash parameters, and then validate those results with actual cars. It's like claiming that a particular car crash couldn't have happened because they can only reproduce it in their model.

Here is the abstract to the article:
In fact, the abstract suggests exactly opposite of what the official narrative requires: that failure is not sudden, but gradual.

This is not accurate at all, the 'official story' doesn't require a sudden failure of the floor systems, it predicts a gradual increase in bowing and inward force until the columns are overwhelmed. This is what this paper supports.

There is no apparent connection to the video of the F.E.A. I linked.

The paper shows that the FEA linked is just the first stage of the interaction and that indeed trusses do behave consistently with the 'official story'.

Let's start with the claim that fly ash metal sphere can look like the ones I linked, shall we?

I already linked ones that look pretty much identical to me. You just dismissed them rather than explaining how they are different, so lets just go over those differences.

The first claim, I believe, was made by you, claiming that the pull in forces generated by heating the floor elements could have caused the bowing.

Let's see your evidence for that claim first, okay?
edit on 25-6-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

I can just repeat the NIST report if you'd like, or you can read it. The only plausible explanation is truss bowing as it matches all of the required parameters:
  • Inward deflection of limited sections
  • Gradual increase in bowing
  • Present at site of greatest heat output
  • Correlates with most likely fireproofing damage
  • Fits closely with models of bowing + disconnections

There's no other explanation with as much confirmation. So much so that people like ANOK claim crazy stuff like it was just the fascia bowing inwards, despite the fact it was many feet of deflection.

<< 6  7  8   >>

log in