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.

 

University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project

page: 23
44
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Simple question, what skyscape building over 50 stories has been brought down by controlled explosive demolition? You say the twin towers could not have been brought down because a building over what size never collapsed due to fire. So you do acknowledge what has occurred on a smaller scale can occur on a larger scale? If steel is impregnable to fire, why does it need time rated fire proof insulation by code?


Your sentences make no sense. Have you been drinking? I don't have time to try and make sense out of your garbled posts. Ask one concept at a time. Your posts are all over the place. I can't answer a bunch of confusing BS all at once without sounding as off my rocker as you.
edit on 30-5-2016 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   


Didn't drop straight did it.
a reply to: wmd_2008

Looks pretty damn straight to me. I don't know how straight you expect a 47 story skyscraper to fall. It sure as hell didn't fall over like it should have. How much money do you make posting nonsense?



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

It sure as hell didn't fall over like it should have.


Why should it have fallen over?
Why do you think it should be strong enough to stop a falling building,
then also be strong enough to hold it up whilst it was pivoting on a small area?

You really do not know much about physics, or how things work!



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

It sure as hell didn't fall over like it should have.


Why should it have fallen over?
Why do you think it should be strong enough to stop a falling building,
then also be strong enough to hold it up whilst it was pivoting on a small area?

You really do not know much about physics, or how things work!



Oh. So you're admitting it fell straight down into it's own foot print. I knew you would come around.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
into it's own foot print.



Still wrong, where did I state that?

We know by the damage caused to the other buildings (funny how you ignore the damage done to WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1) that none of the WTC buildings fell into their own footprint....



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

You have to know doc thinks the towers should have fallen over like a cut tree with the fulcrum being the point the jets entered. I guess people don't understand a office building tries to maximize space. By maximizing space, the buildings are floor after floor of voids. Bottom line, doc doesn't understand an office building mostly being hollow can collapse into itsself. Unlike a tree that cannot push into a solid cut stump with branches creating a centure of gravity not in line with the trunk.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

He also doesn't get gravity on earth experts a force on all objects which tries to pull them to the centure of earth's mass. So all things want to fall straight to the centure of the earth.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith
Forgot quote



edit on 30-5-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Doctor Smith




You show us an example of a steel frame building collapsing from fire. It just doesn't happen. Their are numerous examples of buildings burning 10 times hotter and longer with no collapse. None fall in their own foot print or collapse in any way.

Which one of your numerous examples was struck by any airplane let alone a 767?


Were talking about building 7 which wasn't struck by a plane. If the 2 larger buildings failed, they would break off at the point of impact. Not collapse in their own foot print at free fall speed.


From April 27



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: hellobruce

He also doesn't get gravity on earth experts a force on all objects which tries to pull them to the centure of earth's mass. So all things want to fall straight to the centure of the earth.


Agreed. If all the steel and concrete support is knocked out a precise way. You will have a symmetrical collapse. Timed explosives. The only way.

And you have failed to show an example of another way.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Your the one that has failed to prove gravity works in other ways than pulling items straight down. Please tell us again how the towers which had centers of gravity in line with there foundation and mostly hollow should have fallen to one side like a tree cut at its solid base? Strange if you open a trap door, things fall straight into them?
edit on 30-5-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Again, you say fire never destroyed a skyscraper so it's impossible. Show me where a building over 50 stories was brought down by controlled explosive demolition. Show me a cortolled demolition with explosives that only used explosives on one or two floors mid building.
edit on 30-5-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: hellobruce

He also doesn't get gravity on earth experts a force on all objects which tries to pull them to the centure of earth's mass. So all things want to fall straight to the centure of the earth.



Agreed. If all the steel and concrete support is knocked out a precise way. You will have a symmetrical collapse. Timed explosives. The only way.

And you have failed to show an example of another way.



Fell into their own footprint? The foundations were rectangular. Strange the rubble piles were circular and beyond the boundaries of the building foundations. I guess the collapsing WTC buildings didn't damage two or three other buildings beyond repair. What's the point of a controlled demolition again?



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith




If all the steel and concrete support is knocked out a precise way. You will have a symmetrical collapse. Timed explosives. The only way.

Very narrow minded thinking.
Lets not forget Herbs and Bloodletting are the only ways to treat medical conditions.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
This whole topic of "Falling Into Its Own Footprint" is meaningless.
Much like debating what that dark spot in bird poop is.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Doctor Smith




If all the steel and concrete support is knocked out a precise way. You will have a symmetrical collapse. Timed explosives. The only way.

Very narrow minded thinking.
Lets not forget Herbs and Bloodletting are the only ways to treat medical conditions.



Did you know that by giving blood twice per year you lower your chance of heart attack by 70%? It is you that is misinformed and narrow minded.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
This whole topic of "Falling Into Its Own Footprint" is meaningless.
Much like debating what that dark spot in bird poop is.


To some it is meaningless. Just like common sense is meaningless to them. Or spelling is meaningless.

To them. If one piece of rubble falls into the road, it didn't fall in its foot print.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: samkent
This whole topic of "Falling Into Its Own Footprint" is meaningless.
Much like debating what that dark spot in bird poop is.


To some it is meaningless. Just like common sense is meaningless to them. Or spelling is meaningless.

To them. If one piece of rubble falls into the road, it didn't fall in its foot print.


Are you saying all rubble is ejection with explosives and required by physics to fall in its footprint? Didn't know all rubble had their own foundations? Strange logic?

If steel is impervious to fire, why does buiilding codes require structural steel to be covered in fire proofing insulation? And that insulation is only rated for a period of time based on factors such as working sprinklers?



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Why is it MIT, Purdue, and other colleges or universities critical of the NIST still concluded fire was the cause of building collapse at the WTC site? Groups that strive to understand the mechanisms of the building collapses for better building construction and codes?



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Again, you say fire never destroyed a skyscraper so it's impossible. Show me where a building over 50 stories was brought down by controlled explosive demolition. Show me a cortolled demolition with explosives that only used explosives on one or two floors mid building.


Are you serious? On September 11, 2001 a 47 story building was brought down by controlled demolition, and just 6 or 7 hours previously on the same day and at the same location, two 110 story towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

Wake up and smell the napalm.




top topics



 
44
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join