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 gavron
Correct. The original NIST model that said it was a combination of the plane impacts, and resulting fires, that started a chain of events that led to eventual collapse.
The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The NIST model stated that NEITHER the plane impacts or fires caused the collapse.
Originally posted by exponent
You're not even quoting the final reports there,
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Maybe becasue as stated its the original NIST model.
Not the final report, which is probably as bogus as the Building 7 final report has been proven to be.
Originally posted by exponent
ULTIMA accepts the baseline impact model of the WTC because it supports his conclusions,
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I do not accept any NIST report, just showing how they are bogus and contridict themselves. I can also use NIST reports to debate people who believe the official story.
Originally posted by exponent
How can they contradict themselves by testing three different scenarios?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Simple, the final report contridicts the original model and other prior reports.
[edit on 21-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by exponent
I asked how, not what your opinion of the models were.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by exponent
I asked how, not what your opinion of the models were.
Read the reports.
Originally posted by exponent
Please stop with these short snarky replies. I have read the reports and clearly more thoroughly than you. I am trying to show you how you are wrong but you are behaving in a ridiculous manner.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
How am in wrong?
The final report on WTC contridicts the original model. The oringinal model states that neither the plane impacts or fires were the cause of the collapse.
Originally posted by exponent
Again and for the last time I will ask, how does NISTs model contradict?
Originally posted by fmcanarney
Why does the NIST report need 2500 x 1500 watt stove heat to initiate collapse?
Both the yield stress and modulus of elasticity of steel, the two material properties most important in determining load-carrying capacity, decrease considerably with increasing temperatures (Figure 5).12 At a temperature of 593 ° C,these values will have fallen by at least 40% compared to ambient room temperature levels, meaning that the strength of the steel member will be barely sufficient to resist applied loads (assuming normal safety factors).
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As already stated the original model states that neither the plane impact or fire casued the collapse, other NIST reports go along with this except the final report.
So how can we trust the NIST reports?
Originally posted by fmcanarney
Why does the NIST report need 2500 x 1500 watt stove heat to initiate collapse? It is beyond the stretch of imagination to think that there was that much heat in WTC1-2-7. Incomprehensible. The report was written to draw the focus away from CD events and facts.. It is a disingenuous and fabricated collection of smoke and mirrors to screen and deflect the actual CD event.
Originally posted by exponent
Your trust is not needed, they stand on their own merit
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Thats funny since NIST did not recover any steel from building 7 for testing, so how can NIST reports have merit if they cannot even do a proper investigation?