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.

 

Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

page: 34
13
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: turbonium1




Whatever mass that was supported, would be supported after the damage. The two buildings did not lose any structural support...not to any significant degree.

That has got to be one of the most ignorant statements I've seen on here in a long time.





Says the guy who post only in the 911 forums.....




posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: turbonium1




Whatever mass that was supported, would be supported after the damage. The two buildings did not lose any structural support...not to any significant degree.

That has got to be one of the most ignorant statements I've seen on here in a long time.


After the planes hit the towers, they didn't collapse right away. Unless you have no idea of that. Which means the towers did not lose structural support then. Unless you think they did. What floors do you see collapsing right after the plane impacts? Are you imagining it?



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: VicenteLoco

You are another individual hiding the truth of the truth movement. The truth movement lies. Why are your arguments based on false facts.

One, thermite has been debunked. Jones has never published the results of conducting the thermite experiments in an inert atmosphere that would prove beyond a doubt his conclusions. Jones’s experiments that were published have never had the results duplicated. The chemicals you are referring to are components of paint and paint primer. The thermite paper peer review was mismanaged by a pay to play publication, that bypassed the paper’s referee, and people conducting the peer review help write the paper.

Two, concerning the pentagon flight 77 videos.



Scientists for 9/11 Truth

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate

911truth.org...


Pentagon Security Videos: Recent work on the video from two Pentagon security cameras shows that they captured images of the approaching, low-flying plane. In his paper “The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras,” Ken Jenkins explains the images, how the date error came about, and the likely origins for the trailing white smoke. There is no evidence at this time that the government is withholding other images of the event captured by the surveillance cameras.

Ken Jenkins and David Chandler also recently took pairs of sequential images from the Pentagon surveillance video cameras, putting them together as you would see them in what is called a blink comparator. In this way, the image of the plane “pops out.” If you watch the image cycle a few times, the details of the plane are clearly visible. You can find the blink comparisons on David Chandler’s website, 911SpeakOut.org.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: VicenteLoco

Can you cite any references to these eyewitnesses and exactly cite what they contradict.

Example:
Yes, there are about 10 eyewitnesses out of a hundred plus eyewitnesses attesting to a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon in that flight 77 approached from a different direction. The major of those ten still claim a large commercial jet hit the pentagon.
edit on 29-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed.



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Statements out of ignorance.

Are you saying buildings never collapse after a fire is put out?

Are you saying a building has never collapsed after being condemned.

Are you saying buildings that stayed standing after a large earthquake have not collapsed hours after the earthquake.

Again. The jet impacts took out vertical columns. Load in the towers was redistributed to fewer columns than designed. The impacts removed fire insulation all ready found deficient. Science, the fires at the WTC were hot enough to reduce the steel’s strength by 60 percent. Science, steel expands and contracts when heated and cooled. The floor trusses droopped down. Cooling as the towers fire went out, caused contraction and further strain in the structure. The contacting floor trusses pulled in on the vertical columns, causing bowing and buckling as seen in this video in this thread.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...
edit on 29-10-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Examples of buildings that stood for a long period of time that didn’t fall “right away”. And the buildings had no external event that removed vertical columns, or fires to weeken them. Do you have any other arguments born out of ignorance or deceit.

Three large buildings that have stood for a period of time that spontaneously collapsed because of overloaded.

The WTC towers had vertical columns removed, no concrete core that has saved numerous high rise building, steel weakened by fire, and strain placed on the remaining structure due to load redistribution and thermal stress.

Any more false arguments by you.





The 10 Worst High-Rise Building Collapses in History

www.bestonlineengineeringdegree.com...

6. Royal Plaza Hotel, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand

Police detained the owner of the Royal Plaza Hotel, the architect, and an engineer over allegations that three stories had been added to the building in 1990 without proper architectural review. Also, a huge amount of water was being stored on the roof of the hotel ahead of an expected water shortage.

4. Hotel New World, Singapore
After intensive research, investigators discovered a terrible error in the original design of the building. The structural engineer had completely left out the building’s “dead load,” in other words, the weight of the building itself, during the design process. As a result, it wasn’t strong enough to hold itself up. Tragically, Hotel New World was doomed from the beginning.

3. Three High-Rise Office Buildings, Rio, Brazil

On January 26, 2012, a 20-story building in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil spontaneously collapsed. The gigantic high-rise crashed into another ten-story building and a smaller “three or four” story building, reducing all three structures to one huge pile of rubble. The impact sent an enormous wave of dust and detritus through the streets of Cinelandia square, killing at least 17 people.
If the disaster had occurred just a few hours earlier, it would have resulted in mass casualties. Fortunately, the district, home to many office buildings and Brazil’s prized Municipal Theater, was pretty desolate due to the late hour of the collapse.
Authorities suggested that illegal construction work had weakened the 20-story building and caused it to fragment, which triggered a chain reaction and brought down the two smaller buildings. This catastrophe has led Brazilian authorities to call for reforms and stricter building and renovation regulations, especially ahead of the 2014 World Cup.




posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Funny how your arguments have to suspend reality to be made.




Nearly 360 buildings, homes at risk of collapse following Mexico City earthquake

globalnews.ca...

The risk of delayed collapse is real: The cupola of Our Lady of Angels Church, damaged and cracked by the Sept. 19 quake, split in half and crashed to the ground Sunday evening. There were no injuries.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Structural failure cannot defy physical laws.

Any structural failure holds to the same physical laws, no matter how much you try to excuse this imaginary point where mass will suddenly defy all physical laws.

All of the structures we've built over thousands of years are based on physical laws.

You are trying to suggest that a structural failure happened at one specific area, which caused the entire structure to lose support, throughout, and completely collapsed.

This claim is either provable, with actual demonstrations, or it is a false claim.

Imagine if you were in a physics class at college. You argued that structural failure causes the entire intact structure below it to lose all resistance, against a falling mass. That this mass would somehow take the path of greatest resistance, during its fall to earth.... when physical laws state the mass must follow along a path offering the LEAST resistance.


And the physics professor would ask that you demonstrate your theory to the rest of the class. And he'd provide you with materials to build a model of some kind, which PROVES your theory is legitimate.

It is the same as someone else who claims to know how any other structure had failed. Show it.



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Funny how a guy who claims the moon landings are a hoax because (get this) spacesuits will not work on the moon.....

Your insistence that the WTC collapse does not conform to physical laws is laughable......



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

How did I violate physics?

You don’t think each floor of a building has a design limit based on maximum load / weight capacity?

Please stop creating false arguments.

You never have answered what caused the inward bowing and buckling as seen in the various WTC tower videos I have linked to.

Please create a rebuttal based on a theory with supporting evidence.

You cannot even cite any evidence from the towers to support your conspiracy fantasies in any way.

There is zero evidence of CD, or you would cite that evidence.

The truth movement lied. The towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance. Long sections of vertical columns stood whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor system for each tower.

The truth movement lied. The towers did not fall at the rate of free fall. The floor system of the towers fell at 2/3rds the rate of free fall. The vertical columns fell at a rate slower than the floor system at 40 percent the rate of free fall.

The information on the Madrid Windsor tower I have linked to shows fire does cause the collapse of structural steel. It’s shows many a high rise was saved only by a concrete core the WTC buildings did not have.

The Tehran high rise building collapse was a collapse initiated by fire related structural failure.

I linked to accounts amd examples of three builds that stood for a period of time and underwent spontaneous and total collapse.
-Royal Plaza Hotel, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand
-Hotel New World, Singapore
-Three High-Rise Office Buildings, Rio, Brazil

You over load a building by adding too much static weight, or static weight becomes a dynamic load beyond design limits, buildings undergo structural failure.





Overloaded bins caused building collapse, two worker fatalities

www.ishn.com...

An Omaha building collapse that killed two workers and injured nine others was caused by overloading nine storage bins on the building's roof level, an OSHA investigation has found.

The January, 2014 incident at International Nutrition, Inc. occurred when a structural failure of the east side truss caused the bins to collapse down three floors into the center of the facility. OSHA determined that the bins that supported the east side truss were loaded with an excess of limestone. The extra weight caused the bins to collapse.





edit on 5-11-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

From the top. Please cite from this rough recount of tower’s collapse, what violated the law of physics in anyway.

Each floor of the twin towers had a maximum load limits. A load limit based on on static load given in weight. A dynamic load rating based on force. The term pound actual refers to the force one pound mass exerts down on earth.

One floor of a tower could take and absorb only the equivalent dynamic load of six WTC tower floors falling.

Each upper portion of the towers that fell into the tower’s floor system was greater than 6 floors.

The falling portion of the towers had enough force, the floor to vertical columns connections sheared. This is evident in the vertical columns remained standing during and after the complete collapse of the floor systems.
edit on 5-11-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

From the top. Please cite from this rough recount of tower’s initiation of collapse, what violated the law of physics in anyway.

Studies on the WTC showed the WTC fire insulation protecting the steel was deficient.

The WTC design was a departure from best engineering practices in that it minimized cost and maximizes space by not using a concrete core that has saved other high rise building from total collapse.

Removing of vertical columns, structural failure from the jet impacts, heating by fire, and cooling from fires that weaken structural steel by 60 percent will cause constant load redistribution, expansion, and contraction, thermal stress by uneven heating, and dynamic loads that worked on the WTC until the vertical columns buckeled at the area of impacts. Areas that had the greatest damage to vertical columns. Areas that had the most load redistribution because of impacts removing the most vertical columns.

The jet impacts remove large area of already deficient fire proofing from the areas it was most needed on 9/11.

The fires raged. The heat caused the steel to become more pliable and expand. When the floor trusses could no expand because of the vertical columns, it was easier for the trusses to droop. When the drooping floor trusses cooled and contracted, they pulled in the vertical columns to cause them to bow. Once the bowing became to great, the bowing caused the vertical columns to buckle and fail. As evident in the video in this linked to thread: the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

The falling upper portion of the towers fell into the first static floor. The falling mass caused the shearing of floor connections. Not vertical columns. The vertical columns only toppled after losing the complete side to side support of the floor system.
edit on 5-11-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Nov, 5 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I gave you large paragraphs to find and actually quote what you think violated the laws of physics.

If you cannot provide actual quotes on what specifically violated physics, take your intellectually dishonest argument and move on.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Are you in anyway working in the construction industry look up DYNAMIC LOADS.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Tell the families of the construction workers killed on this site that a top down collapse of ONE floor cannot make it to groung level or stfu !

Skyline Towers collapse





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


So if you don't really know how things work don't comment


edit on 6-11-2017 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
How unusual, an appeal to emotion.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: turbonium1

Tell the families of the construction workers killed on this site that a top down collapse of ONE floor cannot make it to groung level or stfu !

Skyline Towers collapse





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


So if you don't really know how things work don't comment



It didn't completely collapse, first of all.

What is the comparison to the twin towers, or WTC 7, all 3 of which DID completely collapse?



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

From the top. Please cite from this rough recount of tower’s initiation of collapse, what violated the law of physics in anyway.

Studies on the WTC showed the WTC fire insulation protecting the steel was deficient.

The WTC design was a departure from best engineering practices in that it minimized cost and maximizes space by not using a concrete core that has saved other high rise building from total collapse.

Removing of vertical columns, structural failure from the jet impacts, heating by fire, and cooling from fires that weaken structural steel by 60 percent will cause constant load redistribution, expansion, and contraction, thermal stress by uneven heating, and dynamic loads that worked on the WTC until the vertical columns buckeled at the area of impacts. Areas that had the greatest damage to vertical columns. Areas that had the most load redistribution because of impacts removing the most vertical columns.

The jet impacts remove large area of already deficient fire proofing from the areas it was most needed on 9/11.

The fires raged. The heat caused the steel to become more pliable and expand. When the floor trusses could no expand because of the vertical columns, it was easier for the trusses to droop. When the drooping floor trusses cooled and contracted, they pulled in the vertical columns to cause them to bow. Once the bowing became to great, the bowing caused the vertical columns to buckle and fail. As evident in the video in this linked to thread: the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

The falling upper portion of the towers fell into the first static floor. The falling mass caused the shearing of floor connections. Not vertical columns. The vertical columns only toppled after losing the complete side to side support of the floor system.


Show me ANY of the steel to prove your claim....

Because NIST didn't find any...



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Do you research anything.

First, give a theory to what caused inward bowing and buckling as seen in the video in the linked thread below, which has been asked of you page after page.


the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...


Two, you claim I am breaking the “laws of physics” I asked you to directly quote from my short explanation of the collapse what statements violate the laws of physics. Where are those quotes to back your empty claims? Did you make false allegations?

Three, You have not provided a clear and credible theory with an outline of evidence on what caused the collapse of the towers to supersede inward bowing and buckling initiated by the structure being compromise by the removal of vertical columns and weaken by fire, so I really don’t get what NIST has to do with what can be seen through video evidence. There is no audio of explosions setting off that would have the force to cut steel. How would a CD system survive the jet impacts and fires. All evidence of thermite has been debunked, or the results of the experiments cannot be reproduced. Or both.


You have made false allegations, you base your arguments on false narratives, and ignore real world examples.

Your the one the has credibility issues, and I don’t owe you jack.

edit on 10-11-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Prove that any structure can collapse entirely in almost a free fall, from only random fires and random damage, while about 2/3 of the lower structure in perfectly intact....

I've never seen it before, so if you claim it's possible, then you must SHOW it's possible....




top topics



 
13
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join