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.

 

The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11.

page: 6
66
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
And still, this is not at all the calculator to use for a complicated, natural collapse of a steel columned building.
Which involved plasticity, torque, friction, changing angular moments, rotation or rotational motion, linear velocity, angular velocity, deformation, moments of inertia, and lots of other forces or parameters.

This one is the one for that famous billiard ball experiment thrown off a WTC roof.
To calculate the impact force of that one, just fill in the height of the Twin towers, say 360 m, and a weight of 0.5 kg.
Btw, when you change a parameter, after that you press Enter.

Try changing the distance traveled after impact to 0.000001 meter. Then F = 1764000000 N.
If you change it again, to 1 meter, than F = K.E. = 1764 Joule - Newton.


I used the KISS method (keep it simple for stupid) YOU cant work out a stopping distance BECAUSE the structure wasn't strong enough to resist, there are PICTURES of sheared bolts, floor cleats etc to show the MASSIVE DYNAMIC load could not be resisted.

I used this to give an INDICATION of how massive the loads could BE, even YOU didn't have the smarts to realise that!!!

NO EXPLOSIVE required you DON'T understand the method of failure and again you repeat the same nonsense as OTHERS that don't understand.




The MASS from above was falling onto a rigid structure that would try to resist the FLOOR area was 42,000 sq feet were do you think MOST of the falling mass would impact YES that's correct the FLOOR SLABS.

The CONNECTIONS that held the FLOOR TRUSSES were the same on every floor except service floors. They were designed for their own dead load(static) the live load people equipment etc and a safety factor.

Even taking the North Tower a minimum of 10 floors dropped onto the FLOOR SLAB below and that is NOW A DYNAMIC LOAD!!!
edit on 21-8-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-8-2014 by wmd_2008 because: PARAGRAPH REMOVED IN CASE SOME IDIOT TRIED IT!!!




posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

And do you know why it was not accounted for? I'll give you a hint: It wasnt because of sinister plot by (insert favorite boogieman here).



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: wmd_2008


Impact Force from Falling Object.


Its not a falling object, its a FAILING object.

You want to throw the whole mass of a WTC tower top down on the rest of the still standing tower, from a distance of a floor height (3.60 m) with no resistance at all, i.o.w. through AIR.....

Agreed,
I don't know why, (yes I do) some people persist in this way, besides in both collapses of the twin towers, much of the collapse above the points of impact from the aircraft were asymmetric meaning leaving even less mass to impact directly below. The North tower with the mast, does show the mast going down first before anything else and indicates the core was failing in a uniform way but we also know, (1) the mast also then tilted and then fell asymmetrically along with the rest of the building above the aircraft impact point, (2) that the north tower core stood in part for a short time after the rest of the building had gone. Something of a problem then, unless the North tower core had a 'drop and stop' event momentarily, enough for the rest of the building to fall away, even exacerbate it, however it still means the core had failed far below in the first instance.
edit on 21-8-2014 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   
A reply to: wmd_2008


NO EXPLOSIVE required you DON'T understand the method of failure and again you repeat the same nonsense as OTHERS that don't understand.
The MASS from above was falling onto a rigid structure that would try to resist


Wrong. Some of the mass (= columns) was chaotically FAILING, not systematically falling.

So you think you know more, and better, than NIST?
Provide them (and us) a.s.a.p. with your calculations, because they are really eagerly awaiting someone like you.

They never offered their calculations parameters. We are forbidden by executive orders from Bush-2 to see for ourselves what parameters NIST put into their steel-failure calculation computer program.
Which is of course THE main indicator that something is intrinsically wrong with them.



posted on Aug, 21 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: LaBTop

And do you know why it was not accounted for? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't because of a sinister plot by (insert favorite boogie-man here).


Its an old auditing complicating, bookkeeping trick.
Blanket the black money with a plethora of misplaced white money. And then hope the auditor will not discover it.
They did, They died on 9/11.

I just offered you the knowledge where all this black money originates from. Did you even read those 3 articles?
Or do you have counter arguments just as well researched as Mr E.P. Heidner, to oppose his analysis.

I have been an insider gold trader. I know how vast that vault is under the Swiss Kloten Airport. You need small electrical cars to navigate around there. You can't walk it, it's too vast there. And that's only one of them.
There is much more gold stocked in the world, then is ever officially accounted for.
From this simple fact, you can proceed with your own analysis of what's really going on in the shady world of illegal gold bullion transactions, and how it still interacts with Intelligence agencies opposing each other worldwide.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: wmd_2008


Impact Force from Falling Object.


Its not a falling object, its a FAILING object.

You want to throw the whole mass of a WTC tower top down on the rest of the still standing tower, from a distance of a floor height (3.60 m) with no resistance at all, i.o.w. through AIR.....

What about all the still intact exterior and interior steel columns? The majority indeed.
Did you even read in the NIST reports, how NIST tried to get a percentage figure on damaged inner and outer columns? The outer ones could be quite securely counted, but the inner ones was just one big guessing game from them.



NO ONE on either side can KNOW the full extent of the DAMAGE, but what we can be sure off unlike truther claims it was NOT just fire, office fires CAN generate enough heat to WEAKEN steel not melt as truthers say, a falling mass GENERATES a MASSIVE dynamic load look at the video of the North Tower collapse watch the first couple of seconds of the collapse from 0:32 .



Can you tell everyone WHERE the bulk of the 800+ tons of concrete floor slabs fall ?



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: wmd_2008


Impact Force from Falling Object.


Its not a falling object, its a FAILING object.

You want to throw the whole mass of a WTC tower top down on the rest of the still standing tower, from a distance of a floor height (3.60 m) with no resistance at all, i.o.w. through AIR.....

Agreed,
I don't know why, (yes I do) some people persist in this way, besides in both collapses of the twin towers, much of the collapse above the points of impact from the aircraft were asymmetric meaning leaving even less mass to impact directly below. The North tower with the mast, does show the mast going down first before anything else and indicates the core was failing in a uniform way but we also know, (1) the mast also then tilted and then fell asymmetrically along with the rest of the building above the aircraft impact point, (2) that the north tower core stood in part for a short time after the rest of the building had gone. Something of a problem then, unless the North tower core had a 'drop and stop' event momentarily, enough for the rest of the building to fall away, even exacerbate it, however it still means the core had failed far below in the first instance.



WRONG look at the position of the aircraft impacts relative to the cores!



North Tower hit high up MID elevation and of course the core steel is a SMALLER section higher up!

South Tower hit lower down and OFF CENTER fell towards that area.

South Tower hit second fell first FAR GREATER load above impact point.

SERIOUSLY how anyone could think the THOUSANDS of tons of mass falling couldn't destroy the buildings makes me glad you guys have nothing to do with the construction and design of buildings! (well I hope YOUR NOT)

edit on 22-8-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008


SERIOUSLY how anyone could think the THOUSANDS of tons of mass falling couldn't destroy the buildings makes me glad you guys have nothing to do with the construction and design of buildings! (well I hope YOUR NOT)


Are you trying to get this thread shut down with Ad Hominum remarks in the hope of a even bigger response? Well I ain't biting.

As for BOTH the twin towers, it's as plain as the nose on your face that much of the material above the points of aircraft impact went off to the side.
A picture of the South Tower,



The lean over of the upper part of the North Tower was much more severe, it practically fell off in one go.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Do you know who was in those offices? I recall responding to something like this a few years ago, and it was a bunch of auditors for one branch of the military. Oh yes here it is! And coincidentally it was directed to you as well:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is what I said about that:

A little while ago I posted in a thread that mentioned the offices that were impacted and I found some interesting results:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I dont see any accounting offices, but I do see this:

Army Office of Administrative Assistant
www.oaa.army.mil...

Here are the offices again:



Now explain just why they would stick the records of the entire DoD budget in the US Navy Office or the "Army - Office of Administrative Assistant"?

Now the Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army works under the Department of the Army Resource Management. So about the only "accounting" equipment affected was Army budgets, and not the entire DoD Budget. So this does not make any sense. Since when is the Army Budget the entire DoD's budget?

But wait, according to you, the plane was off course. So then that means the plane would have missed the "records" to be destroyed. So are you saying that they needed to scramble and destroy them by hand to conform with the "pre-planned" impact route? Or they forgot just where the records were held?

You know, it kinda hard to believe they would go through all this trouble to destroy records when all they really needed was this:



So somehow a small group of auditors from the US Army's Resource Management group somehow stumbled across this nefarious plot and missing money, so the evil government powers had to go and crash a plane into it? Yeah talk about using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Also how exactly would they have had access to the entire DoD budget if they were working for a subsidiary of the US Army which dealt with the day to day financial transactions of the Army?



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

But it went down. Down as is through the structure. Due to the design of the WTC, this was possible as the way the floors were connected and designed. There was no stopping that collapse.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

I also clarified what the offices that were affected by the impact were here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Apparently you had a hard time differentiating between the US Army financial systems and the actual The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).

Also I'd like to see just how knocking down the WTCs or WTC7 fits into any of this mess with gold bullion and nonsense.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: smurfy

But it went down. Down as is through the structure. Due to the design of the WTC, this was possible as the way the floors were connected and designed. There was no stopping that collapse.

You mean the cores failed as well?

North Tower.


South Tower.

South Tower.
edit on 22-8-2014 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

The top section that fell did most damage to the top of the core, and a bit below. Later on it was just a jumbled mass that was no longer solid, and fell around and through the core structure. By that point the lower floors fell around the core as the exterior columns peeled away. The rest of the building came down. The core itself stood until gravity overcame the resistance and it fell too.



posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: GenRadek
a reply to: smurfy

The top section that fell did most damage to the top of the core, and a bit below. Later on it was just a jumbled mass that was no longer solid, and fell around and through the core structure. By that point the lower floors fell around the core as the exterior columns peeled away. The rest of the building came down. The core itself stood until gravity overcame the resistance and it fell too.


There were two collapses, there were two cores that stood for a short time after, the South Tower core being the most substantial remains even with the much lower aircraft impact zone.
I'm glad you mentioned gravity though, since so much of the material in the initial collapse was heading up the ways and not in a cascade from the source even as the structures fell, like one floor hitting the next below and squishing stuff out with force... almost like a whizz bang firework display, except there is not supposed to be any pyrotechnics in play.



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: GenRadek




The top section that fell did most damage to the top of the core, and a bit below. Later on it was just a jumbled mass that was no longer solid, and fell around and through the core structure. By that point the lower floors fell around the core as the exterior columns peeled away. The rest of the building came down. The core itself stood until gravity overcame the resistance and it fell too.


how?, there are NO FLOORS within the core in which to act as a 'crush-down' mechanism, ON the core


47 CONTINUOUS steel columns from the hat truss to the bedrock.....stairways, landing and elevators all go IN BETWEEN these continuous LOAD BEARING support columns laced with cross, diagonal and lateral bracing throughout.

lol....and "GRAVITY does NOT over-come"....lmao..gravity is a CONSTANT....it has NO point where it suddenly..."overcomes"...RESISTANCE is removed to ALLOW gravity to dictate.


the ONLY reason we are here......your utter failure to provide any supporting evidence the columns allowed this from the FIRES PRESENT!

2005 NIST found NO supporting SCIENTIFIC reason for collapse......x3.


"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"


"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm


and a latter 2008 NIST HYPOTHESIS crew claims NEW physics they don't have to prove per Presidential Pardon.
edit on 23-8-2014 by lotsoftime because: ttypo



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
www.consensus911.org...

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was successful in obtaining the release of a large number of the drawings in late 2011.[2] Review of the released WTC 7 drawings showed that there were two serious structural feature omissions from the NIST analyses relevant to the NIST “collapse initiation” theory. They were:

1. Steel plate stiffeners that provided critical support for girder A2001.[3]

2. Floor beams S3007, G3007, and K3007, which provided lateral support for beam G3005.[4]

Analyses performed by independent engineers show that when the stiffeners and lateral support beams are included, NIST’s probable collapse sequence is impossible, because:

1. The girder flange for column 79 could not bend or fail with the stiffeners present.[5]

2. Beam G3005 – which NIST claimed buckled from thermal expansion and led to the collapse of WTC 7 – could not have buckled if G3005’s omitted lateral support floor beams S3007, G3007, and K3007 were present.[6]
--snip--

Conclusion

NIST’s claim that the collapse of WTC 7 was initiated when Girder A2001 was pushed off its seat at Column 79 is untenable.

With the alleged initiating event ruled out, all of NIST’s claims about subsequent structural failures must be considered baseless and invalid.


Thus, again, NIST was KNOWINGLY lying again, just as when they already KNEW that 2.5 seconds of natural FREE-FALL collapse speed acceleration was present in those first 2.5 secs of the global collapse. But tried to hide these by hiding them into the total of a few seconds taken from just before global collapse initiation and some from after those 2.5 secs, adding them all together and take the mean speed out of them all.
Which is first grade stupidity reasoning, and they knew it, and it was in fact astonishing, how long it still took before a high school teacher like David Chandler showed the world what a sneaky bunch of "scientists" ruled as directors over the non-critical mass of obeying NIST researchers, who all seem to be afraid of loosing their precious jobs, all the while assisting in hiding the filthiest Crime of the Century.

While we all were really doing our utterly best to find the critical holes in the NIST fairy tale story. That's why we should be damn grateful to David.

All these scientists should resign at such a shameless official US Institute, after first finding a new, more honest job and boss.
Those NIST researchers all have shown no spine at all, and should be rightfully shaming themselves for the rest of their careers at NIST.
NO RESPECT FOR COWARDS.

edit on 25/8/14 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Choose, for your Signature :

Definition of STUPID : Knowing the truth, seeing the truth, but still believing THE LIES.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: wmd_2008


SERIOUSLY how anyone could think the THOUSANDS of tons of mass falling couldn't destroy the buildings makes me glad you guys have nothing to do with the construction and design of buildings! (well I hope YOUR NOT)


Are you trying to get this thread shut down with Ad Hominum remarks in the hope of a even bigger response? Well I ain't biting.

As for BOTH the twin towers, it's as plain as the nose on your face that much of the material above the points of aircraft impact went off to the side.
A picture of the South Tower,



The lean over of the upper part of the North Tower was much more severe, it practically fell off in one go.


What lean over of the North Tower do you actually know which tower is which


North Tower



South Tower

I suggest YOU watch the video of the collapse again although the tower leaned there was enough resistance from the structure that it never fell over totally it then dropped vertically!




posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008


What lean over of the North Tower do you actually know which tower is which


Corrected : What lean over of the North Tower? Do you actually know which tower is which?

Well, to phrase it simple :
In his photo of the lean of the South Tower : how many towers do you see in his South Tower lean picture?
Which tower fell first?
So what tower is that leaning one?

Well done...if that is the right answer you will have to come up with.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join