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 WestPoint23
Uh huh, only if you disregard the other factors in this case is that relevant by itself.
I never said the steel melted, in fact neither do the official reports, however there is a difference between steel melting and steel being weakened to the point of loosing around 50% of its load strength, something which might cause "buckling".
Originally posted by Masisoar
...can you show us the massive buckling that occured across each floor in both World Trade Center 1 and 2.
Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
According to the guys who certified the steel, this was not the case.
Nor were the fires hot enough to even warp or weaken steel enough to cause collapse.
Originally posted by Masisoar
Furthermore, considering that there were no structural damage to steel, which obviously didn't need replacement, then how do you get very substantial structural damage across the rest of the World Trade Center to cause the structural failure?
Originally posted by WestPoint23
And how do you think I go about doing this? For me the proof is the collapse of the towers at the impact area.
Because I cant imagine exposed steel and structure withstanding an intense jet fire and then a continues fire for another hour or so and not being weakened.
Originally posted by bsbray11
That's funny, because there have been a lot of hydrocarbon fires in skyscrapers, and most of the time, the structures aren't weakened. I could list off lots of examples, but you would just dismiss them all for having different architecture. Here we have a fire in WTC1, that also caused no structural damage.
What it boils down to, is that you just don't want to know what happened that day, West Point.
Originally posted by bsbray11
West Point, you've had about 5 years and apparently you still don't understand that the impacts themselves did precious little damage to those buildings.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
How hot were the fires then? Because I cant imagine exposed steel and structure withstanding an intense jet fire and then a continues fire for another hour or so and not being weakened. The link below kind of goes over the fire topic.
Originally posted by Masisoar
Skadi I've seen that before, about the firefighters reaching the floors I think they were NEAR impact, not sure. Do you have a source, just wanna check it out.
Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
West point, I do not wish to start a fight or any thing, but its that attitude of ' i know what i saw' that lets magicians get away with tricks and illusions.
The rigid belief that it was the plane and that alone that brought down those buildings cannot be true for one very glaring fact.
WTC 7 was pulled. They all admit it - SO, they had to have preplaced charges to pull a building on the very day of the attacks. As for the towers falling and vaporising into dust whilst STILL AIRBORNE cannot be explained by any thing let alone a simple pancake theory.
Read the above link i posted, have a look at the pictures and read the testimony.
What you saw that day was a well crafted illusion to pull you into the 'bad guys did it' mentality.
Please don't take this as a personal attack, as thats not my intention, all i am saying is that what you can see with your eyes and what was hidden out of sight were and are two seperate things.
PS. If it was a collapse just because of the air craft, why the desperate measures taken to avoid the steel being analysed by independant experts or the FDNY fire service experts?
No they had some thing to hide thats why.
911research.wtc7.net...
Dude read the link. Pancake = false, fire = false, steel melting /weakening = false.
[edit on 28-8-2006 by D4rk Kn1ght]
Originally posted by bsbray11
The same problems are going to be pointed out with it until more and more people get outside of the mindframe that it could only have happened from the impacts and fires. There was not enough structural damage, pre-collapse. NIST own figures on the safety factors indicate this, as well as their lack of visual evidence of sufficient failures. We even have a very experienced structural engineer going public now, saying this exact same thing, that others have been pointing out for years.
[edit on 30-8-2006 by bsbray11]