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 Valhall
Originally posted by billybob
... which is what happened if the reported time of 8.1 seconds for the north tower is accurate.
Okay, please direct me to where this number came from.
Originally posted by billybob
i already did. aren't you paying attention? go back a page or two and you'll find the link to the site that number came from.
rather than give you my argument to shoot down instantly, why don't you tell me how long it took? 8, 9, 10, 11, 12?
scientific american published a time of nine seconds.
some say ten.
too fast, at any rate.
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by Dr Love
These arguments are getting more anal and more ridiculous by the minute!!! Hey Pythagoras...what's with all the calculations?????? Are those supposed to impress us?
Originally posted by billybob
you have taken a smoke-obscured edge and superimposed a straight edge over it. sorry. i just don't see what you see. it looks straight to me.
Originally posted by billybob
you have taken a smoke-obscured edge and superimposed a straight edge over it. sorry. i just don't see what you see. it looks straight to me.
and, valhall, i think you really 'stretching' with your collapse time.
like i said before, the apologists' vaunted 'scientific american' reported a time of nine seconds. that is very different from your time, which is BY FAR the longest i have ever seen claimed.
well, you sure have cahones, if nothing else.
Originally posted by Valhall
If I had cajones they probably would be big...but I didn't even need them in this instance. I just presented the facts.
Originally posted by lost
but i still dont see it. if you mean that tiny sliver of light between your red line and the building, that could all be smoke as far as im concerned. either way, this argument is reaching. even if we were to take this as a fraction of evidence, there is far more evidence implicating quite the opposite; a secondary device.
wtc.nist.gov...
See pages 45, through 54 for more photos and data
Originally posted by lost
so the architect who specifically designed the towers to be capable of taking not 1 but 2 planes each couldnt comprehend all the different variables?
-the master planner counldnt do all that math, but elite members of conspiracy forums retain the expertise to promote a lie? go on, rationalize the biggest crime ever committed.
Originally posted by Howard Roark
May I suggest that you take a look at this also?
Originally posted by lost
so the architect who specifically designed the towers to be capable of taking not 1 but 2 planes each couldnt comprehend all the different variables?
-the master planner counldnt do all that math, but elite members of conspiracy forums retain the expertise to promote a lie? go on, rationalize the biggest crime ever committed.
But Robertson still had one more set of structural calculations to perform. Lawrence Wien, who was continuing his fight against the towers, had begun to remind New Yorkers publicly of a Saturday morning in July 1945, when a B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, barreled into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. Most of the 14 people who died were incinerated by a fireball created when the plane's fuel ignited, even though the fire was quickly contained. The following year, another plane crashed into the 72-story skyscraper at 40 Wall Street, and yet another one narrowly missed the Empire State Building, terrifying sightseers on the observation deck. Wien and his committee charged that the twin towers, with their broader and higher tops, would represent an even greater risk of midair collision.
They ran a nearly full-page ad in The Times with an artist's rendition of a commercial airliner about to ram one of the towers. ''Unfortunately, we rarely recognize how serious these problems are until it's too late to do anything,'' the caption said.
The Port Authority was already trying to line up the thousands of tenants it would need to fill the acres of office space in the towers. Such a frightful vision could not be left unchallenged. Robertson says that he never saw the ad and was ignorant of the political battle behind it. Still, he recalls that he addressed the question of an airplane collision, if only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity. For whatever reason, Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow. Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances. There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.
Originally posted by Dr Love
*sarcasm on* C'mon lost, you know he only designed those buildings to withstand the impact of an airliner carrying no fuel. The guy entirely forgot to account for the burning jet fuel. Wait, but he did account for the burning jet fuel but he forgot to account for the steel fireproofing that had deteriorated over time. It's all because of that damn fireproofing! One of the greatest crimes in history could have been averted with more fireproofing. Oh well, hindsight's 20/20.*sarcasm off*
:
Back when Robertson did his plane study, he overlooked the towers' resistance to fire. And now that construction was under way, the
fireproofing that the Port Authority was using to protect the thin steel components only heightened the towers' vulnerability to fire. Instead of the heavy masonry that protects the steel of structures like the Empire State Building, the authority chose a newly invented lightweight, low-cost product called mineral wool, which is sprayed as a kind of slurry onto steel, where it dries and forms an insulating coating. The idea of fireproofing is to protect a building's steel from becoming too hot and buckling if a fire breaks out. But even during construction, the spray-on material had problems staying attached to the steel of the World Trade Center. Rain would often wash the fireproofing off. When it was attached to steel that was rusty, it would flake off even without rain. The Port Authority still insists that its inspections caught the problems and that whenever fireproofing fell off, it was reapplied. But doubts about the product, which was just then coming into widespread use, never went away. It didn't help matters when it became known that the contractor charged with applying the fireproofing, Mario & DiBono Plastering, was connected to the Mafia.
A midnight blaze in February 1975, which should have been merely a nuisance, turned into a debacle. The fire, set by a custodian turned arsonist, started on the 11th floor of the north tower and over three hours spread up and down into six other floors.
The blaze exposed two major weaknesses in the center's fire-protection systems: there were no sprinklers in the building to extinguish the fire -- as was true in most high-rises of the day -- and critical fireproofing was missing, allowing burning utility wires to spread the fire between the floors. What's more, the tower's core acted like a chimney, sending great plumes of smoke upward. There was no threat that the building would
collapse, but it was an early warning sign of just how unpredictable a fire in the sky could be. If it hadn't occurred in the middle of the night, Fire Commissioner John T. O'Hagan later wrote, ''the rescue problem would have been tremendous.''
Originally posted by Dr Love
Howard, it seems you're trying to bait someone in to saying that those media briefings and government reports you keep referring to are BS so that the person will look even more delusional.