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 bsbray11
I think he knows how stupid what he's posting is, and is just trying to get a rise out of us, like your classic internet forum troll.
Then he gets on his other accounts, that we all must by now realize he has, and stars his own posts.
"Durrrrrrrr"
“But the craziest, most truly unhinged conspiracy theory for the towers falling on 9/11?” Torin asks rhetorically. “Fire.” The official story cannot be recreated by any experiment. NIST is the government agency involved in attempting to model what happened to the world trade center on 9/11, and they fail horribly. NIST never models what happens after the collapse initiation, and even what they do model before that is easily debunked. NIST created 16 separate physics programs to simulate the WTC 1 & 2 collapses and only got 1 to collapse partially. Torin adds, “When they did, [in the computer model] they removed 40% of the structural support.” The cross trusses that the towers received a significant amount of their strength from had to be removed to have a collapse in the computer simulation. Torin then mocks the official story, “There’s no such thing as a ‘pancake’ collapse, but there is a progressive collapse”A few slides are shown of progressive collapses throughout the world. None of them are anything like what happened to the world trade center with its pulverized concrete 100 microns or smaller just seconds after the start of collapse, and then its complete destruction. Torin uses his expertise to explain to the audience how and why a real progressive collapse occurs and subsequently why the WTC was not a progressive collapse. “The biggest problem with the argument,” Torin explains. “Time.”
In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C. This assumption is crucial to the entire analysis, and there is no basis for it. Actual tests of uninsulated steel structures exposed to gas and diesel fuel for sustained periods never exceeded 360°C. And flames were no longer visible in the South Tower moments before its collapse, and it was emitting only dark smoke. The heating is probably accelerated by a loss of the protective thermal insulation of steel during the initial blast. Blast? By implying that the impact fireballs were blasts, the authors confuse explosions, which produce very high pressures, with fireballs, which don't. A detonation wave can be generated by the sudden ignition of an unburned hydrocarbon-air mixture, but is not produced when ignition is continuous, as appeared to be the case with the dispersing fuel in the jet impacts. The fireballs took about two seconds to expand. Had they detonated, they would have appeared in milliseconds. At such temperatures, structural steel suffers a decrease of yield strength and exhibits significant viscoplastic deformation (i.e., creep—an increase of deformation under sustained load). This leads to creep buckling of columns (e.g., Bazant and Cedolin 1991, Sec. 9), which consequently lose their load carrying capacity (stage 2). Once more than about a half of the columns in the critical floor that is heated most suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the critical floor, gathering speed until it impacts the lower part. This flies in the face of engineering practice, which is to build structures at least four times as strong as they would have to be to sustain maximum anticipated loads. Actual load conditions were a fraction of those anticipated loads, since it was not a windy day, and the floors above the impacts were holding only a fraction of their rated capacities. So 90% would be a more realistic estimate of the needed column failure rate. At that moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity. The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part (stage 4) applies enormous vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even if it is not heated. This causes failure of an underlying multi-floor segment of the tower (stage 4), in which the failure of the connections of the floor-carrying trusses to the columns is either accompanied or quickly followed by buckling of the core columns and overall buckling of the framed tube, was it too fast to see on the videos, or was it behind the dust? with the buckles probably spanning the height of many floors (stage 5, at right), and the upper part possibly getting wedged inside an emptied lower part of the framed tube (stage 5, at left). The buckling is initially plastic but quickly leads to fracture in the plastic hinges. The part of building lying beneath is then impacted again by an even larger mass falling with a greater velocity, and the series of impacts and failures then proceeds all the way down (stage 5).
Originally posted by brohiki
Has anyone tried to debunk the ENTIRE NatGo show rather then cherry pick sections of it?
If I recall, the conspiracy theorists bombards the entire NatGo show with "could have, could not have, should, should have...could of, would of, should of" remarks but never really providing clear and scientific answers. Anyone really notice that?
Originally posted by brohiki
reply to post by bsbray11
Has anyone tried to debunk the ENTIRE NatGo show rather then cherry pick sections of it? I've seen the whole show twice and as a professional engineer myself, I would like to see some debunk the whole show. I would ask quite a number of questions around this video. And since I'm also a professional engineer, it takes one to know one. If I recall, the conspiracy theorists bombards the entire NatGo show with "could have, could not have, should, should have...could of, would of, should of" remarks but never really providing clear and scientific answers. Anyone really notice that? The show ends with an author, who himself, writes stories around conspiracy theories and does it for a living, stating that something of 9/11's magnitude could not have been accomplished, in theory, due to the sheer magnitude of people and resources that would be required let along, be kept a secret. Did documents leaked by Wikileaks show ANY kind of connection between the US government AND 9/11? Do you think Julian Assange would have leaked out such a connection as the first order of business? Did he even HINT or threaten to reveal such info like he did for a "known" bank? Or is such info kept at Area 51 to prevent leaks? Or is there a conspiracy theory that Assange is in cohoots with the US government and the US is bribiing him NOT to reveal it? (I anticipate another thread around that). Do you think China would have such info using their spy network?
Here's some interesting reading...
abcnews.go.com...
Originally posted by HelionPrime
The only tricky part of the puzzle remaining is HOW were these thermal charges secreted into the fabric of the building?
Originally posted by pteridine
How would they be timed for sequential collapse? Their mode of action is too slow.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by pteridine
How would they be timed for sequential collapse? Their mode of action is too slow.
And fire heating a bunch of trusses to pull the perimeter columns inward is any faster?
Originally posted by pteridine
There are those who say that the WTC towers fell too fast and that CD was the cause. Thermite/ate is too slow in action to effect such. Is your version of reality that thermite just started the gravitational collapse?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by pteridine
There are those who say that the WTC towers fell too fast and that CD was the cause. Thermite/ate is too slow in action to effect such. Is your version of reality that thermite just started the gravitational collapse?
No amount of rattling can reconcile the contradiction you just posted.
You say thermate is "too slow" to result in what we saw, and yet you think even slower fire did the same thing. We are looking at the same reality here "pteridine." If you think fire did it then you have some serious cognitive dissonance going on if you think thermate is "too slow" to cause the exact same thing.
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by bsbray11
You say thermate is "too slow" to result in what we saw, and yet you think even slower fire did the same thing. We are looking at the same reality here "pteridine." If you think fire did it then you have some serious cognitive dissonance going on if you think thermate is "too slow" to cause the exact same thing.
There is no contradiction.
The claim was made that the collapse seemed too fast for some purveyors of CT and must have been due to sequential demolition of each floor of the WTC. Therm*te can't do it because it acts too slowly, as Cole showed you in his video.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by bsbray11
You say thermate is "too slow" to result in what we saw, and yet you think even slower fire did the same thing. We are looking at the same reality here "pteridine." If you think fire did it then you have some serious cognitive dissonance going on if you think thermate is "too slow" to cause the exact same thing.
There is no contradiction.
Of course not, pteridine. Only when you blatantly contradict yourself is it not a contradiction.
The claim was made that the collapse seemed too fast for some purveyors of CT and must have been due to sequential demolition of each floor of the WTC. Therm*te can't do it because it acts too slowly, as Cole showed you in his video.
But again, you think fire did the same thing. This whole response of yours is nothing but hilarious arm-waving.
We are looking at the same building "collapse."
If you think fire did it, how is thermate supposed to act more slowly than fire?
Answer that question. Every time you dodge it you are showing yourself.