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.

 

September 11, 2001: Interesting and Less Talked About 911 Info!

page: 11
89
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642
partial free fall and very close to it. This much was conceded by nist.


Only for 7 WTC, and that was due to its construction, being built over a substation.


Regardless of that they fell at much too high a speed to be meeting the kind of resistance as they fell that should have been present.


According to who exactly?




posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
The one part of my post that can be confirmed with the ubiquitous video and a stopwatch is what gets slammed.


Actually you do not need a stopwatch, just watching WTC 1 & 2 falling you can clearly see the debris falling off the building falling at free fall speed, the building collapsing is much slower....



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: largo
Compare to the the tiny single one found in Washington.


Why tell such silly made up stories? Parts of both engines were found at the Pentagon. Why is it truthers have to constantly make up silly stories?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

THe entire building collapsed SYMMETRICALLY.
One damaged external surface does NOT explain that in ANY fashion.
edit on SundaypmSun, 15 Feb 2015 17:39:23 -060052015 by largo because: Grammar



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

If I remember correctly the interior columns were welded. There were no bolts snapping.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: hellobruce

THe entire building collapsed SYMMETRICALLY.


Not really, but how else could it have collapsed other than straight down? Or do you think it was strong enough to have toppled over?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: sg1642
partial free fall and very close to it. This much was conceded by nist.


Only for 7 WTC, and that was due to its construction, being built over a substation.


Regardless of that they fell at much too high a speed to be meeting the kind of resistance as they fell that should have been present.


According to who exactly?
brucey mate you may well be correct, I may be correct. We could both be wrong. Who knows. Regardless of any of that it was a tragic event and good people lost their lives. It should never have happened. I'd like to think we have learned from it and the aftermath but I don't think that we have.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
THe wings have engines attached to pretty substantial struts. They are also loaded with fuel, which at speed act just like battering rams.
As an example take a gallon of water in a plastic jug spin it around your head on a rope at several hundred miles an hour and hit a 4x4.
Broken 4x4.
Inertia and mass makes liquids equivalent to battering rams.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: hellobruce

THe entire building collapsed SYMMETRICALLY.


Not really, but how else could it have collapsed other than straight down? Or do you think it was strong enough to have toppled over?


Yeah its always the strongest buildings that tipple over. There is SUCH a lack of construction knowledge here it is laughable. Anyone in this thread in that field needs a new job.

Vertical columns are not welded. Well, technically, the steel reinforcement for the concrete columns are sometimes welded. But these 2 buildings were different. There were serious engineering challenges.

They Were designed to withstand 150mph winds. They Were build as an exterior tube type construction unlike any other at the time. There were no curtain walls. They were structural and designed to deflect the force from one side to the other side.

I'm sure someone could compare the forces of the jet, to a 150mph wind gust. Or show how the impact could have exceeded the 100 000 psi rating of the steel members, impacting their strongest face.

Sorry, without pre cutting those members, you have a Boeing pancake on the sidewalk. Without cutting the base supports, you can't get it to collapse. Without careful symmetry, it would want to topple over on its side.

The floors were not more than 5 inches thick with a base steel pan, and lightweight concrete. The strength of this building, unlike others, came from the over 100,000 TONS of structural steel in its outer shell. Which is a conservative estimate.

I don't have all the answers. I don't even have a favorite theory.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: largo

And they're thin enough that if you step in the wrong place you can put a foot through the skin.

The engine struts play no role in anything dealing with wing strength. A wing is stressed so that it's very strong flexing up and down, but not as strong back and forth. Even full of fuel they're still fragile and aren't going to do much damage to a concrete building.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

911research.wtc7.net...

Please examine the evidence then have your opinion restated to include that the core supports were welded. Also that there was no evidence of the bolts snapping from the connecting lateral beams.
Resistance is futile to the truth and the truth is demolition brought the towers down.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: largo

And they're thin enough that if you step in the wrong place you can put a foot through the skin.

The engine struts play no role in anything dealing with wing strength. A wing is stressed so that it's very strong flexing up and down, but not as strong back and forth. Even full of fuel they're still fragile and aren't going to do much damage to a concrete building.


Let alone a building with a newly engineered steel super structure. My own terms.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
I see a boatload of debris. What's your point?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: largo

Read the post it was in reply to. He said he wanted to see one other plane crash with no recognizable debris. So there it is.



edit on 2/15/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/15/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: Zaphod58
THe wings have engines attached to pretty substantial struts. They are also loaded with fuel, which at speed act just like battering rams.
As an example take a gallon of water in a plastic jug spin it around your head on a rope at several hundred miles an hour and hit a 4x4.
Broken 4x4.
Inertia and mass makes liquids equivalent to battering rams.


You just take some nugget of truth and extrapolate it to fit your ideas. Let's see if you can see your most glaring error. I'll ask a leading question. How does the surface tension of water relate to the surface tension of jet fuel?

Your analogy is under much more strain than the WTC would notice from the plane. Fuel, wings, struts and all.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Kinetics dispute your conclusions. Please occupy yourself in looking at the recovered pieces. See the size of the center shaft being held by a person? Rather small, eh, for a large engine?
Also these principal core columns were welded every few floors, continuous welded columns from the foundation to the top of the towers. The surrounding I-Beams were twisted in the one photo but NOT the core shaft. Special steel casted in Japan for it was not available in the US.

Spend some time here, 911research.wtc7.net... instead of here.

Less BS, more facts.

This edit is to concede that the author of the Pentagon incident contained therein agrees with you, convincingly. Since I try to have positions on things (I am an ignorant man.) and not hold to beliefs, opinions or faith, this guy sorta rips me a new one. I'm done with the Pentagon as being other than the crash of an airliner.
Whether it was the plane flight of 'record' or not or on autopilot needs to be determined.
I do apologize for my lack of conformity in this issue to your statements.
edit on SundaypmSun, 15 Feb 2015 19:05:35 -060072015 by largo because: Change of view



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   

edit on SundaypmSun, 15 Feb 2015 18:48:20 -060062015 by largo because: Dupe



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: largo

You've obviously never once worked anywhere near a plane. Those "large engines" are tiny compared to the fan section. The engine core is only a couple feet across, where the fan can be over six feet across.



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst


No mention that those building were in fact designed to take the damage from an airliner strike, albeit not as large as a 767.

What about Kamikazie style, 400 miles per hour, full of fuel and intent on doing as much damage as possible?


We build Skyscrapers to withstand hurricane force winds and earthquakes.

hurricane winds at 200 mph same as 400 mph Jumbo Jets?


No one can find any steel building free fall collapsing into its own footprint, other than controlled demo.

Is there another speed for things to fall? I mean cement and steel and all, not feathers. You just used three BS terms in one sentence. Is that a free fall record?



posted on Feb, 15 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: largo


Resistance is futile to the truth and the truth is demolition brought the towers down.

Can you even begin to explain how that would be done? Just wondering…



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join