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 HowardRoark
You aren’t serious, are you?
That looks like someone is torch cutting the columns in the recovery effort.
Why and How they should be collected? Oh, alright, let's NEGLECT evidence, sure, that'll get the investigation done.
Let's see Vushta, if the questions to me weren't answered, then why would I be satisfied, that's just common sense. This isn't a problem of deliria.
What do you know about the investigation? What do you want to know about it?
It's because bits and pieces tell a different story than what the NIST has to offer.
How do I know this? Oh I forgot my dear Vushta, no there were no scrap yards holding the metal awaiting to be scrapped, they were all shipped to huge warehouses where the EVIDENCE can be studied. However long it might take.
Let's say the debris of the World Trade Center didn't matter but a few pieces that looked interesting.
Originally posted by Vushta
Why do you think its the responsibility of professionals conducting an incredibly complex investigation to explain everything to you or anyone else.
Originally posted by Vushta
I know it was conducted by the most experienced forensic scientists in the most state of the art labs and peer reviewed.
Originally posted by Vushta
And what is that story? What "bits and pieces" give credibility to that story?
Originally posted by Slap Nuts
If you cannot acknowledge that the NIST report has errors and/or gross baseless assumptions then I suggest you take a second look.
[edit on 28-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Originally posted by Slap Nuts
If you cannot acknowledge that the NIST report has errors and/or gross baseless assumptions then I suggest you take a second look.
[edit on 28-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]
So, are you saying that the hundreds of structural engineers worldwide that peer reviewed the report failed to notice these errors and baseless assumptions?
Are they all “on the payroll” also?
Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Originally posted by Vushta
Why do you think its the responsibility of professionals conducting an incredibly complex investigation to explain everything to you or anyone else.
1. Because as an American Citizen they are responsible TO ME and paid by ME.
2. Your "professionals" failed to follow even the most basic rules of disaster/crime scene investigations and MUSt be held accountable.
3. Please describe their job to me. You seem to think they just needed to figure it out in their own heads and that would be that.
Originally posted by Vushta
I know it was conducted by the most experienced forensic scientists in the most state of the art labs and peer reviewed.
Then why were so many mistakes made? Why did they not invite truly independant researchers? Why were they ALL on the government payroll? Who are the "peers"?
Originally posted by Vushta
And what is that story? What "bits and pieces" give credibility to that story?
If you cannot acknowledge that the NIST report has errors and/or gross baseless assumptions then I suggest you take a second look.
Vushta is on the payroll.
[edit on 28-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]
Then why were so many mistakes made?
Originally posted by Vushta
And what is that story? What "bits and pieces" give credibility to that story?
If you cannot acknowledge that the NIST report has errors and/or gross baseless assumptions then I suggest you take a second look.
Although the WTC towers were similar, they were not identical. The height of WTC 1 at the roof level was 1,368 ft above the Concourse level, was 6 ft taller than WTC 2, and supported a 360 ft tall antenna for television and radio transmission. Each tower had a square plan with the side dimension of approximately 207 ft. The corners of the tower were chamfered 6 ft 11 in. Each tower had a core service area of approximately 135 ft by 87 ft. All elevators and three egress stairs were located within the core, although on any given floor the arrangements of the elevators and the location of the stairs varied. Placing all service systems within the core provided a nearly column-free floor space of approximately
31,000 ft2 per floor outside the core. The two towers had about 10 million ft2 of rentable floor area.
The towers were designed as a “framed-tube” structural system with closely spaced exterior perimeter columns connected by spandrel beams around the perimeter at each floor level. The core was designed as a conventional frame with a grid of columns interconnected with beams.
The exterior walls were composed of box-shaped welded steel columns and spandrel beams comprised of a steel plate. Each building face consisted of 59 columns spaced at 3 ft 4 in. on center. As part of the framed-tube system, the exterior columns were designed structurally such that they resisted the total lateral loads and about 50 percent of gravity loads. Below floor 7, the columns were combined in groups of three to form single base columns which were spaced 10 ft on center and extended to the footings. An important architectural feature of the towers was the uniform look of the exterior walls, presented by the uniform width of the exterior columns up the height of the buildings. This was produced by maintaining a constant exterior dimension the columns and changing the strength of the steel with height. Thus, twelve different grades of steel, with yield strengths ranging from 36 ksi to 100 ksi, were used for the exterior columns. The external cladding, which covered the columns and spandrel beams, consisted of aluminum sheets. The window openings were infilled with glass fitted into aluminum covers and sealed with neoprene gaskets.
The core columns were of two types: welded box columns for the lower floors and rolled wide flange shapes for the upper floors. They were designed to support about 50 percent of gravity loads. Below floor 7 to the foundation, where there were fewer perimeter columns in the outer walls, bracings were used in the outer perimeter of the core area to increase lateral stiffness. In the lower part of the towers, the outer core columns were designed to resist a portion of the lateral forces. Hidden within the building, the core columns were thicker and larger on the lower floors. Thus, core columns used fewer grades of steel. The box columns were either 36 ksi or 42 ksi. Core wide flange columns were one of four grades, yield strengths ranging from 36 ksi to 50 ksi, but most (approximately 90 percent) were primarily 36 ksi or 42 ksi steel.
Originally posted by openfire
Originally posted by HowardRoark
You aren’t serious, are you?
That looks like someone is torch cutting the columns in the recovery effort.
Forgive me for my ignorance, but can you please specify who and/or what they were recovering???
Originally posted by Masisoar
The coincidences being:
- The Muslims accused of the terrorist attacks, who had lacked sufficient flight training experience had nailed World Trade Center 1, World Trade Center 2 and the Pentagon in a 1 round shot. They didn't miss and turn around. They nailed each one where they wanted to. Not to mention how difficult that is traveling at the high speeds they were accused of going at.
- They took over planes with box cutters, with the plane's passengers submitting to them, minus flight 93, who knows what really happened.
- World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2 fell perfectly symmetrical and in their footsteps despite different damage factors.
- World Trade Center 7 fell symmetrical and was accused of being brought down by a fuel fired by a ruptured deisel fuel tank.
- The collapses of the World Trade Centers mimicked the effects of a controlled demolition.
- There was a brief military stand down in the time frame of the aircraft being hijacked and flying them into the buildings.
- The fires inside the World Trade Centers lacked the efficiency to burn hot enough to cause the flowing molten metal seen oozing from the World Trade Centers.
- The fires inside the World Trade Centers lacked the efficiency to stay as hot as they did for as long as they did, even after rain and the huge amounts of water being dumped onto the debris.
- The tapes that caught the impact of the Pentagon attack were confiscated and nothing vital in respect to video footage has given us an accurate portroyal of what his the building.
- The World Trade Center 1 and 2 fires weren't efficient enough to bring each other down in the 2 hour time frame from the impact to collapse.
- The building seemed to of met virtually free-fall fall times, even as the building's mass was being dissipated and pulverized on the way down, with allieviation of mass, less force, but still continuously and effectively brought down the rest of each other.
There are far more coincidences that are pointed out on websites looking further into the 9/11 issue, but those are some that I feel need to be pointed out. I'm sure more members can point out more.
Originally posted by Griff
Is this also aluminum that piled up? Where's the heat source for this?
[edit on 6/27/2006 by Griff]
Originally posted by Masisoar
You don't need training to crash and airplane. You don't need to know how to fly good to crash an airplane. The Twin Towers are unmissable (if that's a word) and there are no buildings around the pentagon that would cause anyone just wanting to crash a plane to miss. How could you not miss any of those targets??
Billy RAY! Dat dare is a good staetment cepta... you do need to know how to fly good, to flys a plane, speciallys when trying to aims it at somethins whiles goin 500 mph. Don't cha know that!
Have you ever read the comments by their flight instructors? They said they were horrible pilots, really, that means you DO NOT KNOW HOW TO FLY. More or less BANK a commercial jet liner to nail the Pentagon. Jesus man, give me a break or give me a bite of that.. KIT KAT BAR! :-D
I'll get to the rest of your post later