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 aboutface
reply to post by snowcrash911
Nah, nah. I stick by my findings and recordings. A lot of stuff was inserted way after the fact and predated.
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by Six Sigma
*Grin* Yes, I know what was written, but a lot of it was written after the fact.
Should the press be clairvoyant? That's an unusually high standard to adhere to. I'll pick up a newspaper now, and look up the sports pages. I'm not a betting man, but this is too easy.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The press should understand grade school Newtonian Physics.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
They should understand that skyscrapers must get stronger toward the bottom therefore more steel is required therefore skyscrapers must be bottom heavy.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
9/11 Mysteries is about the best movie on the subject so far.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The 9/11 decade is the pinnacle of stupidity of European culture.
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Yes. You're like a broken record though on this issue. It's fatiguing. I heard you and acknowledge your point.
I didn't know the United States was exempt, unless it's part of European culture.
The should understand there should be a lot of weight at the bottom so the building does not tip in the wind.
Originally posted by samkent
Please explain these:
Your engineering knowledge is way below par. This likely why you keep asking for the distribution of steel and concrete.
The experts (you are not among them) keep saying that the fires alone were enough to destroy the buildings. The insulation on the steel is a major factor on how long the buildings could withstand unfought fires.
Maybe when you grasp this concept you might be able to progress beyond this silly conspiracy theory.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Just because a building looks top heavy DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN that it is top heavy. Buildings are mostly empty space. You cannot tell from looking at the outside how much steel and concrete is where. And buildings less that 20 stories are totally irrelevant compared to the WTC. How much torque is applied to the base by a 100 mph wind with a building more than 1000 feet tall?
So why haven't they done it without fireproofing. Because if they do it and they still don't fail in two hours then their argument goes out the window.
Originally posted by samkent
Here is a nice link.
It's an Excel spread sheet you can use to predict the fire survival time of steel beams.
If you care to note the times are given in seconds not hours.
It was produced by engineers for the NRC. But I guess you will say that they are in on it too. I guess they rushed to change all the reference material just for 911.
Everybody is keeping things from psk. Just so he cannot calculate the distribution.
Originally posted by KillShotMi
Now, I am not a genius by any stretch of the imagination. I am also not an engineer, but I am going to take a shot at this dead horse.
1) 2 Planes hit the buildings.
2) The fire and damage caused the buildings to fall.
3) They then used heavy machinery to remove the debris.
4) The steel would have been recycled, and the debris would have been taken to a landfill.
Answer: Hit, Fell, Recycled and Reused
Before hitting enter, I checked my "check stub" and looked in the mirror. I assure you, I do not get paid by the govt. and I do not have a wool coat...
Edit to add: In case someone was worried about the physical position of my eyelids, I assure you they are open. I would hate to have someone waste their oh so precious breath by telling me to open my "Paid shill, sheeple eyes.