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 prizim
I can't say for sure if any part of 9/11 was an inside job, but this link is absolute proof to the cause of the towers collapse:
www.tms.org...
.....when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising......
Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse
Towers, Flight 11 and Flight 175 were respectively carrying only approximately 36% and 31% of full fuel capacity. The NIST reports offer varying estimates of the amount of jet fuel that was on the airplanes. One passage states that on impact Flight 11 “likely contained about 10,000 gallons of Jet A fuel (66,700 pounds)” 4. Another passage states that Flight 175 contained “about 9,100 gal (62,000 lb)”5. However, these relatively qualitative descriptions are contradicted by NIST in more detailed quantitative information described below.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
If the fulcrum is the core, then Valhall's thoughts are correct.
If you're not a troll, and admit that the fulcrum was the wall, then she's wrong.
Whatever happened to this?:
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
If the fulcrum is the core, then Valhall's thoughts are correct.
If you're not a troll, and admit that the fulcrum was the wall, then she's wrong.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Yup, only there was no fulcrum. The far side wall acted as a hinge for a few degrees, until it exceeded its capacity to hold up load, then it collapsed down.
The fulcrum is a feature of the Valhal's delusional belief that there was tilting/tension, etc.
I said the impact damage is assymetrical damage.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by bsbray11
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.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Everyone has an understanding what is described by a teeter totter fulcrum. Same thing for a hinge.
Originally posted by bsbray11
No, it wasn't a dodge at all.
Originally posted by billybob
the title of the paper: "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
you do know speculation is not proof, right?
so, obviously, when mr. eager wrote this ANCIENT paper, he presumed there was WAY, WAY more jet fuel than there actually was. the NIST claims what was left of the 10, 000 gallons after the initial fireballs consumed at least 20% was burned off in the first ten minutes, and some escaped by flowing down elevator shafts and stairwells, which makes sense.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
His report goes into detail how the fuel ignited the office contents, and he goes into detail how the fires were hot enough to deteriorate the structural integrity of the steel. THAT is the meat and potatoes of his report, and it's obvious from your deflection over the exact amount of fuel that you are unable to contest it. It would be one thing if your point was that the planes weren't carrying enough fuel to start this chain reaction, but you're not even contesting *that*.
This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.
I know exactly where the fulcrum was. It was on the far side ext wall.
Originally posted by Nutter
One thing I'll contest from Eager.
He assumes that this fuel load was enough to heat the steel to loose it's integrity.
That is a pretty big assumption considering that NIST didn't find anything above 250C on most of the steel and only 2 pieces above 250C.
So, yes, his whole premise does indeed rely on this amount of fuel to be present since his whole premise relies on the amount of heat being given off from a fuel-rich fire.
Originally posted by billybob
eager can't even amend his page to correct his "L gallons", yet you continue to defend his report.
it's been refuted. deal with it. it's built on false assumptions, and i doubt eager himself agrees with it, anymore.
not to mention, it is but a drop of water off any good conspiracy duck's back. the evidence for inside job is OVERWHELMING, from science to politics to war mongering.
and, bye, good ole dave. welcome to the "not worth my time" ignore list. you're like the third or fourth person to grace it's hallowed halls in my entire 6 year membership.
congrats.
i won't be reading your response.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Would you mind terribly posting where you got that from? From the way I'm reading the NIST reports, they show a high temperatire of approx 1,000C on floor 94 of WTC 1, fifteen minutes after the impact (NSTAR 1, fig 6-36, page 127), which directly confirms Eagar's assessment that high temperatures instigated the thermal expansion of the steel.
It's certainly not 90,000 L I admit but it's still more than enough to initiate the chain reaction that Eagar documents. If it was only carrying ten gallons you would certainly have had a point, but arguing over whether it had 33,000 L, or 90,000L, is largely insignificant, since either were enough to have had the exact same effect.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I've repeatedly asked you a very simple question: where was the fulcrum? The core or the wall?
You haven't answered.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
If the fulcrum is the core, then Valhall's thoughts are correct.
If you're not a troll, and admit that the fulcrum was the wall, then she's wrong.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Yup, only there was no fulcrum. The far side wall acted as a hinge for a few degrees, until it exceeded its capacity to hold up load, then it collapsed down.
The fulcrum is a feature of the Valhal's delusional belief that there was tilting/tension, etc.
Originally posted by billybob
there was no fulcrum. a fulcrum is a the point around which a LEVER rotates. this implies that something is pushing down on one side of a continuous horizontal (initially) "plank", and that there is a stationary, unmovable point which allows for leverage at the other end of the "plank".
the pivot point would not be a distinct physical feature, like a particular column location, but rather a "floating point" centre of rotation which would shift as the "cap" encountered varying degrees of resistance from the undamaged portions it impacted.
what is the "core" of disagreement, here? why are we talking about the fulcrum, tension/compression issue?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by billybob
the title of the paper: "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
you do know speculation is not proof, right?
That is true...but then again, speculation based on known scientific principles and recorded events is still more credible that speculation based on anti-establishment personal agendas and innuendo.
Originally posted by bsbray11
It's your personal opinion that we're all here to carry out "anti-establishment personal agendas and innuendo."
If your theory is that trying to remove crooks from office is anti-establishment, so be it. But trying to keep them there makes you a traitor to the country, and guilty of treason. Basically an accessory to their own cover-up efforts. That is, if you really think we should just keep crooks in office, and extremely corrupt political arms in power. Is that what you're saying?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
No, actually, the only way the conspiracy theorists would ever give these conspiracies any credibility is if they had a hard core streak of anti-establishment paranoia to begin with.
STRAW MAN: a fallacy in which a person's actual position is ignored and is substituted with an distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. Sound familiar...?
FYI Bush is no longer president; Obama is. Is Obama the next crook you want removed?