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.

 

Anonymous goes "full 9/11 Truther"

page: 17
23
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

You don't even define what pulverization is other than you don't think the towers looks all there from a photograph.......




posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: facedye

I am done playing, and this is why.

You reference pictures than the actual statistics of WTC clean up tonnage.

You told me I could not reference those silly load capacities of WTC floors.

You want to treat the towers as a solid single mass object that cannot be deformed.

Will not define how the force of collapse of the falling floors was instantaneously and informally transferred to the static portion of the towers.

You will not reference how energy was needed to cause pulverization.

You will not state or reference how much mass was pulverized into oblivion vs actual tower mass recovered.


we talked about the statistics of the tons collected, more than once. i talk about it on this same page, in fact.

you can reference anything you'd like to reference, but you can't seem to come to any conclusions on collapse, nor point me to any model or example that can convey what you mean. i have and can point you to very many.

when did i say the towers were a "single mass object that cannot be deformed?" seriously, quote me.

i did define how the energy was transferred. 30 floors fall on 80. 30 stacked wrecking balls fall on 80 stacked wrecking balls. 30 stacked cars fall on 80 stacked cars. the phenomenon here will always be the same. the 30 cars, in this example, would fall onto 80. the force of the impact is absorbed by the cars at the top as well as the cars on the bottom, dynamically. things get destroyed, absolutely. however, the 30 falling cars *will not* continue to fall straight through the 80 below them.

again, pulverization is a term used by mainstream media sources. i'm going off of the official story given. are you calling Peter Jennings and George Stephanopolous wrong?

there were only a few floors standing after the destruction of the twin towers.

you're done playing because you're tired of using the same weak and illogical reasoning to no success.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: facedye

i did define how the energy was transferred. 30 floors fall on 80. 30 stacked wrecking balls fall on 80 stacked wrecking balls. 30 stacked cars fall on 80 stacked cars. the phenomenon here will always be the same. the 30 cars, in this example, would fall onto 80. the force of the impact is absorbed by the cars at the top as well as the cars on the bottom, dynamically. things get destroyed, absolutely. however, the 30 falling cars *will not* continue to fall straight through the 80 below them.


No no no no.

You are treating the objects as solids that cannot be deformed.

You totally ignore the towers are composed of floors with load limits that transfer their stress to vertical columns through connections. Connections that are rated only for a specific amount of load capacity in specific geometries. The floors themselves are not solid pieces of steel of uniform mass. They are composed of concrete and numerous individual steel components.

One, wrecking balls and cars are not buildings that are 95 percent space.

Two, you can collide two wrecking balls with enough force they will deform. Enough force and the will fail. Crack apart.

The cars. The they are not buildings. They are more like a pile of rocks. The have relatively little empty space with very solid engine blocks. The rigidity of a pile of cars does not rely on connections to vertical columns.

But what are you saying, the cars will not deform? You drop 30 cars with payloads on to a free standing pile of 80 cars, cars will not compact? The total height of 110 cars will be the same before and after deformation has occurred. Again. It comes to force of impact.

WTC towers are not solids of uniform mass. They are 95 percent space. You have failed to state how the falling floors transferred their force instantaneously and uniformly to vertical columns. You have fail to state how the static portion of the towers acted as a solid that is impossible to deform.

You ignore the very real deformation to failure of floor connections and the inability to transfer force through those failed connections to the vertical structure.

And you still ignore the statements from the NIST.
edit on 29-9-2016 by neutronflux because: Added floors are not uniform mass.

edit on 29-9-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-9-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: facedye


again, pulverization is a term used by mainstream media sources. i'm going off of the official story given. are you calling Peter Jennings and George Stephanopolous wrong?
.


Yeap, they are wrong. Unless they mean a mass of broken building materials. Five ton falling wall? Five tons of falling bricks? Still five falling tons with stored potential energy and kinetic energy ready to cause force at a point of impact.

One, define what you mean by pulverization.
Two, provide quantifiable statistics that proves your definition of pulverization took place.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

that photograph has MUCH scale and depth. you can easily find very many aerial photographs if you actually wanted to make a case against the photo. too bad you didn't choose to do that.



Why you cannot trust the scale and depth of a overhead picture of the WTC pile. Starts with the towers having a basement........ Another example of a false narrative based on information out of context



From: www.uwgb.edu...

Some conspiracy theorists claim that large amounts of the buildings were unaccounted for by the size of the rubble pile. Since only 12% of the building volume was solid, the towers should collapse into a pile 12% of the original height of the building, or just about 50 meters high. Since 18 meters of that pile would be filling the basement, the above-ground portion would be 32 meters high.
The actual rubble pile reached the fifth story of adjacent buildings, so well outside the footprint of the tower the pile was five stories, or about 15 meters high. The pile would have been roughly conical, and would have included a lot of void space, increasing its height and offsetting the larger diameter of the pile. Overall the rubble pile is what you'd expect.
So it simply isn't true that the rubble pile is only a small percentage of what would be expected.



edit on 29-9-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: samkent

WTC 1 & 2: 500,000 tons each

and what about WTC 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7? are you saying that 5 additional buildings being completely destroyed can be summed up to only contain 800,000 tons of debris? this is inadequate.


Ok. Does the 1.8 million tons include the clean up of WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7?

What was the total floor count of WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 combined? is it more than the floor count of one WTC tower?

What is the amount of building materials needed for each floor of WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7? They where not as tall, so would they have the same amount of material per floor?

What was the floor size of WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7? Was the square footage the same as a floor of a WTC tower.

Did the ground sections of WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 include wide open lobbies for open and tall entrances?



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
WTC 3 - 22 floors
WTC 4 - 9 floors
WTC 5 - 9 floors
WTC 6 - 8 floors
WTC 7 - 47 floors

Total 95 floors for 800,000 tons Vs WTC 1 @ 110 floors for 500,000 tons.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Oh..... Please explain how s 150 pound person can break a board being held by a 250 pound person during karate events.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: facedye

i did define how the energy was transferred. 30 floors fall on 80. 30 stacked wrecking balls fall on 80 stacked wrecking balls. 30 stacked cars fall on 80 stacked cars. the phenomenon here will always be the same. the 30 cars, in this example, would fall onto 80. the force of the impact is absorbed by the cars at the top as well as the cars on the bottom, dynamically. things get destroyed, absolutely. however, the 30 falling cars *will not* continue to fall straight through the 80 below them.


No no no no.

You are treating the objects as solids that cannot be deformed.

You totally ignore the towers are composed of floors with load limits that transfer their stress to vertical columns through connections. Connections that are rated only for a specific amount of load capacity in specific geometries. The floors themselves are not solid pieces of steel of uniform mass. They are composed of concrete and numerous individual steel components.

One, wrecking balls and cars are not buildings that are 95 percent space.

Two, you can collide two wrecking balls with enough force they will deform. Enough force and the will fail. Crack apart.

The cars. The they are not buildings. They are more like a pile of rocks. The have relatively little empty space with very solid engine blocks. The rigidity of a pile of cars does not rely on connections to vertical columns.

But what are you saying, the cars will not deform? You drop 30 cars with payloads on to a free standing pile of 80 cars, cars will not compact? The total height of 110 cars will be the same before and after deformation has occurred. Again. It comes to force of impact.

WTC towers are not solids of uniform mass. They are 95 percent space. You have failed to state how the falling floors transferred their force instantaneously and uniformly to vertical columns. You have fail to state how the static portion of the towers acted as a solid that is impossible to deform.

You ignore the very real deformation to failure of floor connections and the inability to transfer force through those failed connections to the vertical structure.

And you still ignore the statements from the NIST.


so the WTC is more fragile than stacked cars or wrecking balls? how can this be?

and you state the cars will be somewhat compacted - sure, some of that will happen. by the same token, you'd have all the cars visibly left in a pile. where's the WTC pile? can you show me any evidence to visibly account for 220 floors of compacted steel columns?

LOL

for all the things I've "failed to mention," you sure fail to make any good or recognizable common sense.

I've failed to state how the falling floors transferred their force simultaneously? how are you this dense? when you punch a punching bag, does the whole bag absorb the blow?

while we're on the topic:

lo, and behold! a 10 story building engulfed with flames! I wonder why it didn't collapse?

10 Story Building Engulfed In Flames

looks like, by your understanding of what makes buildings collapse, the construction of the twin towers as a feat of American engineering doesn't stand up in quality and stability to this raggedy 10 story building!



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Things you will not answer or take out of context.

One. Asking if the collapsed WTC towers looks all there from a overhead photograph and ignoring a good portion of the debris was in WTC basements. Also trying to pass the photo as having a good sense of depth.

Two, will not answer how a 150 pound person can break a board with their hands held by a 250 pound person. Does that violate the conservation of momentum.

Three, ignores several factors concerning the towers. Their steel was inadequately fire insulated. The sprinkler systems were compromised. Firefighters were not able to combat fire. Towers were virtually all steel frame construction with no meaningful concrete reinforcement. They held up well for being hit with jetliners.

Four, will not answer how the force of falling 30 floors hitting the topmost static floor instantaneously and uniformly transferred the force of impact. Wants to treat the steel frame of the WTC as a homogeneous soild block incapable of deformation.

Five wants to compare a pile of cars, which is closer to a pile of rocks, as if they were a building 95 percent open space which gets its rigidity from floor connections to vertical columns. Floor connections with load limits and geometry limits.

Six, will not comment on answers from the NIST concerning WTC tower floor limitations and how conservation of momentum was not violated.

Seven. You still will not define what you mean by pulverization.

Eight,. Will not state the amount of mass that should be at the pile. Will not state a quantifiable amount of mass missing from the pile. Will not define how the implied mass went missing. Will not state the amount of energy required to make the implied mass to disappear into oblivion. Will not state the source of energy.

Ten, ignores detailed analysis by welding experiments out lining how floor connections failed. Fail connections that made it impossible to transfer the force of collapse to the WTC towers vertical columns.

edit on 30-9-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

things you don't understand:

- Newtonian principles

- giving straight answers

- the definition of pulverization (even though you can look at a multitude of dictionaries)

- how a building collapses

- how to properly rebuttal talking points

- how to substantiate your position using facts and examples

I've literally and descriptively responded to every single point you've raised. you just choose to not accept nor digest my reasoning, nor anybody's reasoning here that conflicts with your point of view.

I have never argued that the building's construction shouldn't have given way due to asymmetrical damage. I'm even accounting for the building collapsing due to fire, which is silly. still, accounting for failing floors and connections, my point of view is easily validated and can be observed anywhere. I've given you many real life examples, all pointing to the same physical process. you have not done the same.

looks like you're ignoring my consistent requests for you to provide any model or physical example that is comparable to your point of view - to NIST's point of view as well. can you show me anything to substantiate what you're claiming happened? can you show me literally anything else with a collapse pattern similar to what you think happened?

in b4 "another rant."



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Your argument has degraded to to LOLs

You first............

One. Asking if the collapsed WTC towers looks all there from a overhead photograph and ignoring a good portion of the debris was in WTC basements. Also trying to pass the photo as having a good sense of depth.

Two, will not answer how a 150 pound person can break a board with their hands held by a 250 pound person. Does that violate the conservation of momentum.

Three, ignores several factors concerning the towers. Their steel was inadequately fire insulated. The sprinkler systems were compromised. Firefighters were not able to combat fire. Towers were virtually all steel frame construction with no meaningful concrete reinforcement. They held up well for being hit with jetliners.

Four, will not answer how the force of falling 30 floors hitting the topmost static floor instantaneously and uniformly transferred the force of impact. Wants to treat the steel frame of the WTC as a homogeneous soild block incapable of deformation.

Five, wants to compare a pile of cars, which is closer to a pile of rocks, as if they were a building 95 percent open space which gets its rigidity from floor connections to vertical columns. Floor connections with load limits and geometry limits.

Six, will not comment on answers from the NIST concerning WTC tower floor limitations and how conservation of momentum was not violated.

Seven. You still will not define what you mean by pulverization.

Eight, Will not state the amount of mass that should be at the pile. Will not state a quantifiable amount of mass missing from the pile. Will not define how the implied mass went missing. Will not state the amount of energy required to make the implied mass to disappear into oblivion. Will not state the source of energy.

Ten, Ignores detailed analysis by welding experiments out lining how floor connections failed. Fail connections that made it impossible to transfer the force of collapse to the WTC towers vertical columns.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

me first? I've addressed every single one of your talking points, more than once.

let's consider for a moment that I'm the dumbest, most illogical person alive. let's consider that I'm 8 years old and need things laid out for me simply, with as many pictures, videos or real life examples as possible.

can you show me anything to substantiate what you're claiming happened? can you show me literally anything else with a collapse pattern similar to what you think happened?

what else behaves this way in nature?





edit on 30-9-2016 by facedye because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: facedye

Then it should be easy to cut and paste an answer to each point from your past comments.

You still used a misleading picture for the pile. Ignored, and did not care to divulge, the fact a good amount of the tower's debris were below grade in the tower's basements. Ask for opinions if the debris is all there. Never stating a number of missing tonnage vs actual tonnage recovered.

You use LOL in debates.

And never have defined the WTC towers in terms of Newtonian laws.

You will not even define in a form of a definition what you mean by pulverization.

Never commented on the NIST towers figures on floor capacity.

Never commented on NIST WTC conservation of momentum.

Ignore the fact floors are rated in load capacity and weight limits.

Never broke down the 1.8 million tons of debris removed from the WTC. Never giving a figure how much of that debris belong to WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. If you cannot state a figure for each building, the amount of mass you believe missing vs amount recovered, what mechanism cause the mass to go into oblivion, then I guess you have nothing to debate.

Let's start simple. Does a large and more massive 250 pound person holding a board being broken from a karate hand chop by a 150 pound person violate Newton's laws and conversation of mass? I mean how much does a hand weight?
edit on 30-9-2016 by neutronflux because: Addec last line

edit on 30-9-2016 by neutronflux because: Added being



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: facedye

EACH FLOOR SLAB was INDEPENDENT, they had their own connection it's not 30 v 80, it's 30 v 1 then 31 v 1 then 32 v 1.

The floor slabs were suspended on connections between the outer wall and inner core, the connection of that floor SUPPORTED only that floor no other that's what people like YOU cannot seem to grasp




The connections are not flat bar as stated above but a structural angle


The bulk of the dust was caused by sheet rock & the sprayed on fire protection there was thousands on sq m's of that in each tower and also thousands of sq ms of ceiling tiles items easily crushed and that would cause vast amounts of dust & behind the cladding panels there was also vermiculite another lightweight easily crushed material


If you don't think a collapse of a floor onto a floor to ground level can happen explain this



edit on 10-10-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-10-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join