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.

 

A Simple Question for 9/11 Truth Seekers.

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: samkent

I can say that because the steel below the fire was untouched and at ambient temperature, therefore uncompromised. If the top of the structure indeed went into freefall due to heat diminishment, when the falling mass hit the first section of uncompromised steel it would have either stopped and sat there or toppled off to one side or the other. The loading retained far too much symmetry to be natural.



Apparently there was this amazing shock-wave "bowing" that popped all the trusses loose from the exterior walls AND the core columns. So that allowed the compromised top section to basically plough right through a perfectly sound structure as trusses were just giving way below from the "bowing".




posted on May, 6 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

I dont know why your post does not have more stars!?

I'd give it a dozen or so If I could!



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: BennyHavensOh




If the top of the structure indeed went into freefall due to heat diminishment, when the falling mass hit the first section of uncompromised steel it would have either stopped and sat there or toppled off to one side or the other.

You must have watched different videos than me.
That 'falling mass' was all of the upper floors not just one floor.
Now explain how light weight floor trusses could withstand that.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

The floors that fell had been held in place for a long time by the structure below them, so there was no overload. If you had any instruction in steel design you might understand that as the floors fell on top of the supporting columns that they were actually putting the columns into compression where their ability to withstand the falling mass would have been phenomenal and at some point in the decent, differential loading from the collapse would have caused an uneven collapse of the structure below causing the crumbling mass on top to shift to one side or another. You will never understand, perhaps you should just insult me based on my looks!



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
that as the floors fell on top of the supporting columns


What supporting columns? Obviously you know nothing about the construction of the WTC! Typical truther.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: BennyHavensOh




differential loading from the collapse would have caused an uneven collapse of the structure below causing the crumbling mass on top to shift to one side or another. You will never understand,

Do you mean shift like the picture in this link?
Here




If you had any instruction in steel design you might understand that as the floors fell on top of the supporting columns that they were actually putting the columns into compression

Uhh you got it wrong again.
There were no supporting columns for the floors to fall on.
ALL the floor trusses were supported by the exterior wall on one end and the inner core on the other.
Nothing in between.
No columns. No beams. Nothing
That was the design flaw in the buildings.
Have you not looked at any of the construction pictures?

Now if they had added structural steel connecting the outer wall and the inner core your argument would stand up.
But there was none. Just light weight floor trusses. Think Walmart roof.
The outer walls could not hold their shape for more than a few floors is it weren't for the floor trusses bracing them laterally.
WTC is now a lesson on how NOT to design a tall building.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: samkent

That gets overlooked so much, the fact that the top section only needed to move the width of a core column in any direction for that upper mass to have no support at all apart from the already compromised outer wall. Once the spine was broken, the path of least resistance was straight down through the floors exactly as observed.

Legal pursuit of conspiracy related to the collapses would be a waste of time with a predictable outcome. There is some small hope for investigation of events leading up to the destruction related to who & why but I doubt any legal finding would be seen as satisfactory to all.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum

So what took the cores down in both towers?



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Pilgrum

So what took the cores down in both towers?


What was left to hold them up?



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

I think a mass of about 150000kg hitting the building at over 200 metres/sec had something to do with it.
m.v^2/2 remember and then there was subsequent heat from fire to produce enough lateral force to cause remaining intact core column welds to break.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: Sremmos80

I think a mass of about 150000kg hitting the building at over 200 metres/sec had something to do with it.
m.v^2/2 remember and then there was subsequent heat from fire to produce enough lateral force to cause remaining intact core column welds to break.



The heat from the fire caused lateral force? And enough to break 80 floors worth of untouched steel columns??



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 03:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat

The heat from the fire caused lateral force? And enough to break 80 floors worth of untouched steel columns??


It only had to cause a total failure in the area of the impact to initiate a collapse obviously. You really need to get away from the notion of some conspiracy in the collapse of those towers and perhaps look more into how planes came to hit the towers in the first place (the who, how and why of it).



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: VinMan




Why are you here?


To engage in enlightened and challenging debate on topics that interest me, to show "the other side of the coin" to many of the conspiracy theories that are believed by many and to encourage discussion on this aspect of conspiracies.



Are there any CT's that you do believe in? Do you always believe the gov's official story?


Yes loads, for example I believe that we have been visited by UFO's in our distant past, David Kelly and Neil Haywood were assassinated, the livenenko case, a number of conspiracies regarding black ops (use of drones, E-Squadron and BA flight-149 to name a few) , I was talking about NSA government spying before it became fashionable and i could probably keep going on with this. Specifically regarding 9/11 I do believe there has been a significant cover up of the role the Saudi state played in the attacks and i have written on this subject also on ATS.

I want you to know I find it hilarious that you, the "conspiracy theorist" will probably wind up having to google half that list.

(please do some research into my previous thread before you make a assumption like that)



You seem pretty well versed in both the OS as well as the CT's regarding 911. That seems pretty unusual for someone that believes the OS.


First of all thanks for the compliment, i think.....

But there are two reasons for this, principally I used to be a strong advocate of 9/11 conspiracies I was watching lose change and reading David Griffin long before many of todays "truthers" that was until i began my own research, this is why i am well versed in the conspiracies. Secondally I also have a active interest in violent Islamic extremism so I am very well versed groups like Al-Qa'ida hence i can talk about the OS also.

It is not actually as unusual as you may think, there are many sceptical of 9/11 conspiracies on this site who can argue their case better than me. What I have noticed to be unusual is that it is rare to find a 9/11 truther who is well versed in the official story, there are some notable exceptions, but for the most part many fail to grasp even the most basic facts.



So really, why are you here?


.....emmm I already covered that.

I probably should add that in addition to wanting to encourage debates on topics i am passionate about I also get a 6 figure salary from the propaganda department of the CIA (is that the answer you really wanted)

Besides all of this is totally off-topic, your whole post exemplifies that annoying tactic of going after the player not the ball, nothing in your post is discussing my original question. Which is kind of ironically funny considering that you quoted my entire OP and then totally fail to even acknowledge my question let alone answer it.

The topic at hand is why the 9/11 truth movement have so far sought legal action against



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Guys!!!!

In this last page we have all gone a little off-topic like i said in the OP this thread is about why there has so far been no legal action taken against those the 9/11 truth movement believes were responsible for the attacks.

Can we please try to stay on topic

a reply to: BennyHavensOh

Question for you then?

If you are so sure that based on your expertise that there is no way those buildings should have fell the way they did then why have A&E for 9/11 truth not taken legal action against the American government to prove this lie?

Its all very well and good making all these accusations but until they do something serious like putting together some kind of legal case, all they will ever have is accusations.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80




So what took the cores down in both towers?

Assume all the floor trusses were still strongly connected to the inner core.
Just like a wood deck connected to a house.
Now remove the outer support(s) for the trusses just like removing the end beam and supports on the deck.
The falling floor/deck will twist the core steel/house joist to the point of failure.
Steel beams are designed to bear weight in a certain direction.
These were not designed for twisting.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Your question is moot but if you insist on a real short answer....Because!



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Guys!!!!

In this last page we have all gone a little off-topic like i said in the OP this thread is about why there has so far been no legal action taken against those the 9/11 truth movement believes were responsible for the attacks.

Can we please try to stay on topic

a reply to: BennyHavensOh

Question for you then?

If you are so sure that based on your expertise that there is no way those buildings should have fell the way they did then why have A&E for 9/11 truth not taken legal action against the American government to prove this lie?

Its all very well and good making all these accusations but until they do something serious like putting together some kind of legal case, all they will ever have is accusations.



It is obvious to me that you are no shill, but are someone asking questions in search of answers and I applaud you, thank you. Yes I am even more than sure that the buildings were brought down professionally and would go to the guillotine holding my opinion and I will try to explain. Imagine if you can, the steel structure alone standing there like a big cage of WF beams, C channels and trusses, just the steel skeleton, nothing else. Now take the top third or quarter of the structure, which has been supported by the steel below it for decades successfully, cut it off, raise it up as high as you want and drop it directly down onto the structure below it. How could it possibly pulverize the structure and cause it to freefall into it's own footprint? This example can be done at home like I do when I crush my 24 ounce beer cans with an 8 pound sledge hammer, holding the hammer directly over the upright can and bringing it down as squarely as possible in an attempt to crush each can into its own footprint. Nine out of ten cans bend, pop out to the side and these are only thin empty aluminum.

Why to the engineers not pursue legal action? Good question but you must keep in mind that they have to pay their lawyers and the government does not. The object for TPTB is to delay the truth, not eliminate the existence of it and lawyers can delay for decades. Mark Lane subpoenaed JFK documents under the FOIA and he was delayed 15 years by the government, fortunately he WAS the lawyer so his costs were low. In addition, I can state from personal experience that sometimes, when you delve into issue too deeply or when you get close to a "nerve" you get a visit from a couple of guys that ask you if you really want to pursue the path you are taking and why don't you consider NOT going there.

Keep in mind that the government refused to investigate the incident until the victims families sued them to do it and look and the line of crap they were served up. Resistance is futile.
edit on 7-5-2015 by BennyHavensOh because: Spelling



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Just curious why denbunkers and thruthers alike always drag the conversation to the collapse of the wtc and not the planning and execution of the attacks?

It has been revealed that debunkers pose a thuthers promote Space weapons, and collapse theories as to keep the discussion in the waters of conspiracy rather than available facts.

Here is a video. Its quick and to the point, a must watch and SFW



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Shadow Herder




Here is a video. Its quick and to the point, a must watch and SFW

That vid has soooo many outright lies and false statements it's almost funny.

Isn't it interesting how the producers of these 911 vids hide their identity?
That say's they can't stand behind their work.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Just curious why denbunkers and thruthers alike always drag the conversation to the collapse of the wtc and not the planning and execution of the attacks?

It has been revealed that debunkers pose a thuthers promote Space weapons, and collapse theories as to keep the discussion in the waters of conspiracy rather than available facts.

Here is a video. Its quick and to the point, a must watch and SFW


All the facts shown on the video are things we have all seen before yet putting it together as was done there really drives home the point of the ridiculous nature of the official storyline, thank you well done. I have had the occasion in my days to do work with people that were involved with, let's just say, shady business in their other endeavors. It always makes for very interesting conversation though it is a bit unnerving at the same time. I will never forget the concept I was told that if you lie, do not tell a small lie because the general public will not fall for small lies, they do small lies themselves every day and can see through them. If you are going to lie make it BIG, the bigger the lie the more people it will fool because you overload their limited circuits and they lose the ability to process the large amount of falsehood that big lies are made up of.

In the case of 911, the general public can NEVER allow itself to believe that we were deceived by our own masters or it would drive them insane and I understand that. If the masses were to understand how evil their own masters have become this whole society would simply collapse, so perhaps we should let them turn their attention away from this deception and focus on the things the Sheeple do best like drugs, alcohol, and porn. It is a safer option.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join