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 LeftBehind
Did I miss something?
How where the tops of the building opened up?
Until the top disappears you can clearly see it is intact during the collapse. Especially in the air jet photo first shown.
Cypher says posted on 5/20/2006 at 05:40 AM Post Number: 2193888
For example, the "Analyzing the Collapses" that jtma508 posted, was written by David Ray Griffin, a professor emeritus of theology. Now, if we were discussing the evolution of Eastern theology I would trust Mr. Griffin’s knowledge of the subject matter, but I do not trust him to adequately explain how a progressive collapse can or cannot occur.
Cypher says posted on 5/20/2006 at 05:40 AM Post Number: 2193888
* * * most of the world's engineers, physicists, and demolition experts, believe that there is nothing to indicate that the towers collapsed from the anything other than the impact of the planes and the resulting fires.
Originally posted by RANGE_MASTER
This is easily explained. The 2 crashes destroyed what they hit, however when they hit they sent ton's of debris falling. The debris you see in the picture is just a small amount of the debris being pushed out a window by the huge force of the 2 explosions. The pancake may not have reached those 2 floors, but the debris sure did.
is at best uninformed, and at worst, blatantly embracing ignorance.
The collapses were too surgical.
and their scientific arguments that support that conclusion. Furthermore, when he does address their arguments, he offers NO scientific proof for his counter arguments.)
the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
and also, as evidence that;
the fires did not break windows or even spread much beyond their points of origin
Prof. Griffin also cites Jim Hoffman a number of times, even though Mr. Hoffman, while an admittedly gifted software engineer, has no practical experience in material engineering, construction.
to weaken the steel columns, (the fire) would have needed to be not only very big and very hot but also very long-lasting
Originally posted by Cypherit is my understanding that the NIST engineers and others, believed that once the progressive collapse was initiated, the results were predetermined, and that the usefullness of modelling the collapse itself would result in little additional knowledge.
Originally posted by bsbray11
The cores did NOT pancake or fall floor-by-floor, but straight down upon themselves from the base, just like conventional demolitions.
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Originally posted by bsbray11
The cores did NOT pancake or fall floor-by-floor, but straight down upon themselves from the base, just like conventional demolitions.
lol, yet you show a pic of the core base still standing.
Also, millions of people were watching the buildings fall live. With both buildings the base (core, outter wall, etc.) all stayed intact until the end of the collapse. Now you're saying that the millions of people who saw it live are wrong and you're the sole person who saw the base collapse first?
Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You said "but straight down upon themselves from the base, just like conventional demolitions."
Why are you telling me to watch the videos if you're saying this it's obvious you haven't seen any videos as neither building fell like conventional demos.
In conventional demos what's blown up? The base. Why? So the building can fall in on itself.
With the Towers, again, the base (core and all) stayed completely intact until the collapse reached that point. In no video ANYWHERE can you see the building falling straight down from the base.
Originally posted by sp00ner
That 'sliver' that's standing in the bottom pic is the exterior wall, not the 'core'.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by sp00ner
That 'sliver' that's standing in the bottom pic is the exterior wall, not the 'core'.
I wonder, why are you the only person suggesting this? Do you know something that we don't?
Those things sticking up in the air there are box columns. If you watch the video footage showing the whole thing, you can see very clearly that those are box columns, and not the perimeter columns linked together with spandrel plates and all of that. The box columns in the core didn't have spandrel plates, unlike the perimeter columns, and neither do those columns that are still sticking up in the air. They're also farther apart and spaced just as the core columns were, and not as the more closely-linked perimeter columns were, which again had spandrel plates connecting them.
And you also have the problem of WTC2's core also staying put, and it's even more obviously not the perimeter:
[edit on 22-5-2006 by bsbray11]