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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Study concludes explosives used on 911

page: 30
130
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: neutronflux

Nist didn't find any evidence for structural weakening, it's just another lousy theory like the Toldya(TM). The study in our OP has more evidence to offer, I don't get why you would prefer to speculate instead. Ah wait... I actually do.



Agreed to disagree.


My copy of the Study contains the evidence for structural weakening. Do you want to borrow it?




posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: RKWWWW

Don't trust a 'study' without any physical evidence whatsoever, they calculated long enough to meet the conformation bias they were supposed to meet.
You're aware that the conclusions Nist 'found' were preordained?

More derailings, that's what this is. I reckon you don't like the study in the OP? Who would've thought...



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


Steve Jones also claimed JESUS visited America



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Which he did, watch Walking Dead in case of doubt. I like his hair and I bet he has his pockets filled with weed.

The eye of the beholder doesn't look so good, but it surely doesn't see much. Does it?

Jones isn't the only scientist involved, you'd have to try harder. Nice Ad Hom though, I'll give you that. Where did he claim that? I bet you'd also claim god is dead, who's the killjoy nutjob now?




posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

He even got kicked out of his post in University because he was to much of a liability. I would like to know where you get your figures for the amount of rubble for 9/11.

Each of the 2 towers had around 96,000 tons of steel and they had about 1000 ton per floor slab. Now as I have had a technical role in construction for some time and have YET to meet a STRUCTURAL engineer from my side of the pond that thinks it's a demolition job do you want to discuss this picture.



A top down collapse to ground level NO fire or aircraft impact required due to STRUCTURAL failure, 14 men died but of course that could not be true in the truthers reality because such a collapse is impossible to people like YOU.

That is a concrete structure NOW can YOU tell everyone what the floor slabs in that collapse have in common with the slabs of the twin towers. Don't worry if that to much for you


I will wait for your reply with great interest.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Aint that the towers from the aftermath of an earthquake in Mexico? Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway. That's enough for you to discard all structural engineers who designed the WTC?



floor slabs


No microstructural change in the steel trusses keeping the floor slabs in place? So what, can we find heat hydrolyzed concrete there as well or molten steel? How about roughly 20% iron spheres in the dust or firemen reporting explosions in the basement? Nothing like that?

Hmm. Why would you even go down that route if there's nothing even remotely comparable to the WTC incident?

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: neutronflux

Nist didn't find any evidence for structural weakening, it's just another lousy theory like the Toldya(TM). The study in our OP has more evidence to offer, I don't get why you would prefer to speculate instead. Ah wait... I actually do.



Agreed to disagree.


You do know structural steel only retains 60 percent of its strength at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit?

To say steel is not weekend as it increases in temperature is a false narrative. As steel increases in temperature, it increasingly becomes more likely to yield to strain.


Again, I never said the steel failed due to fire.

Are you saying the floor beams did not try to expand as they were heated.

The insulation in the towers was known by conducted per 9/11 studies to be insufficient.

edit on 25-10-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: wmd_2008

Aint that the towers from the aftermath of an earthquake in Mexico? Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway. That's enough for you to discard all structural engineers who designed the WTC?



floor slabs


No microstructural change in the steel trusses keeping the floor slabs in place? So what, can we find heat hydrolyzed concrete there as well or molten steel? How about roughly 20% iron spheres in the dust or firemen reporting explosions in the basement? Nothing like that?

Hmm. Why would you even go down that route if there's nothing even remotely comparable to the WTC incident?

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"


Clutching at straws there



It is concluded that the improper removal of forms supporting the 23rd floor resulted in increased shear force around the columns. The recently poured concrete had not yet reached its full strength capacity and was unable to withstand these increased forces. Therefore, the trigger mechanism of the collapse was shear failure around a number of columns on the 23rd story. Without the support of these columns, other columns on that story were overstressed which ultimately led to the collapse of the entire 23rd floor slab onto the floor below. The increased loading on the 22nd floor from the weight of the collapsed floors above was too great and led to a progressive collapse all the way to the ground level


The kind of collapse TRUTHERS always claim cant happen because the mass below the collapse is greater than the mass above, that's because most of the people on the net with web sites making claims re 9/11 have NEVER been on a construction site and the most technical question they ask during the day is "do you want fries with that" yet the internet lets them pretend they have half a clue what they are talking about, unfortunately others believe the claims without doing any research or having any TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE.

That building is Skyline Plazza - Baileys Crossroads VIRGINIA (1973)

As the floor slabs were suspended between columns when they failed to support the load the top slab fell the dynamic load was too great on the connection holding up the slab below that fell the combined mass fell on the next YOU should get the picture now.

NO EXPLOSIVES REQUIRED


The WTC floor slabs were suspended between the outer walls and core the SAME process could happen there.
edit on 25-10-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

WIN AT YELLING!

You're a genius - go and sue the structural engineers for this weak WTC excuse of a flawless skyskraper design!

The Nobel-price for could,would,should-manship goes to...
the person failing to explain how said concrete got heat hydrolyzed in his theory. Hi temp silicates could give you a clue, or condensed lead on fragmented mineral wool and iron spheres with high amounts of aluminum. Ask yourself why the heck all that asbestos was pulverized and blown out on the streets. Wasn't that stuff part of the fireproofing and didn't that have to be buried deep under the falling debris?

A Perfect Circle. Maybe you're better off this way.




posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: wmd_2008

Ask yourself why the heck all that asbestos was pulverized and blown out on the streets. Wasn't that stuff part of the fireproofing and didn't that have to be buried deep under the falling debris?



The asbestos fireproofing was sprayed on. As the building collapsed there was a cloud of concrete and drywall dust. Included was the sprayed on fireproofing. This wasn't held with anything but a binder which did not stand the stress of the aircraft impacts or a collapse. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Millions of pounds of falling steel, concrete, and building materials is going to pulverize about anything. You really really needed to look up the effects of steel rods and balls used in rod mills and ball mills. Pulverizes rock and coal with 10 tons of steal effectively only falling about five feet in a rotating mill.

Add this to the large volume of air pushed out as each tower floor is collapsed to eject any created dust.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

The dust cloud badly sprayed on fire protection many cubic meters of it, thousands of sq meters of sheetrock, vermiculite behind the ALUMINIUM cladding panels. ceiling tiles, glass, concrete dust, dust from uncleaned sreas built up over many years, soot from the fires ALL the things truthers forget when they claim the towers turned to dust.

See if you actually knew how the buildings were constructed you wouldn't believe silly claims.



posted on Oct, 26 2016 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: RKWWWW

Don't trust a 'study' without any physical evidence whatsoever, they calculated long enough to meet the conformation bias they were supposed to meet.
You're aware that the conclusions Nist 'found' were preordained?

More derailings, that's what this is. I reckon you don't like the study in the OP? Who would've thought...


My copy of the Study includes physical evidence in Chapter 6, titled, "Reconstruction of the Collapses". Do you want to borrow it?



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 09:27 PM
link   
I agree the collapse of the Twin Towers , and WTC 7 looked identical to a controlled demolition. I can remember coming in from school that day and watching the footage for the first time and thinking "Wow" that looked just like a controlled demolition. Conspiracy had not even crossed my 16 yo mind at the time. My main hang up with the controlled demolition theory is, how could they possibly of set one up going unnoticed. Suppose will never know.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I agree the collapse of the Twin Towers , and WTC 7 looked identical to a controlled demolition. I can remember coming in from school that day and watching the footage for the first time and thinking "Wow" that looked just like a controlled demolition. Conspiracy had not even crossed my 16 yo mind at the time. My main hang up with the controlled demolition theory is, how could they possibly of set one up going unnoticed. Suppose will never know.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I agree the collapse of the Twin Towers , and WTC 7 looked identical to a controlled demolition. I can remember coming in from school that day and watching the footage for the first time and thinking "Wow" that looked just like a controlled demolition. Conspiracy had not even crossed my 16 yo mind at the time. My main hang up with the controlled demolition theory is, how could they possibly of set one up going unnoticed. Suppose will never know.



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: LittleFire

Stratesec maybe?
Welcome to your new rabbit hole btw! It's pretty deep though...




posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: LittleFire

Coming in from school well some of us WERE WORKING in construction longer than you had been alive at that point. The DYNAMIC load of the collapsing structure brought it down due to the floor design. Any material falling on a floor slab could only be resisted by the connections holding that slab thats what happened with the towers. WTC7 was damaged by the North Tower collapse the fire men reported that



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008



Good thing is, we have some suspicious folks waving red flags of authority while claiming virtual titles to support their extraordinary claims. Right?
'Heat hydrolyzed concrete' and yet our 'engineers' remain unmoved, not a single eyebrow raised. How fishy is that?

Carry on!


edit on 24-11-2016 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Nice read , Thanks! I've been reading pretty extensively on 911 for the past 10+ years and have never ran across that.



new topics

top topics



 
130
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join