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: 35
11
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You claimed I violated the laws of physics. Is that false.

I asked you to provide the quotes where my statesmans violated the laws of physics. Is that false.

Do you have proof I violated the laws of physics, or did you make false claims.

By the why.... please provide a link to wherever a high rise building over 50 stories was ever brought down by explosive CD with the explosives employed for a top down CD.

Please link to where a high rise building was brought down by a top down CD by thermite.


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




posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
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....


If you cannot link to an example of a high rise building over 50 stories being brought down by explosive charges/thermite before 9/11, that makes CD at the towers impossible?

I quoted various cases of building “spontaneously” collapsing from being overloaded.

The Madrid Windsor had a complete collapse of the structural steel above the 17 floor if I remember right. The complete collapse of the building was only stopped by the concrete core, which the WTC did not have. The Tehran high rise collapse was a complete collapse initiated by fire.

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



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: turbonium1
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....


If you cannot link to an example of a high rise building over 50 stories being brought down by explosive charges/thermite before 9/11, that makes CD at the towers impossible?

I quoted various cases of building “spontaneously” collapsing from being overloaded.

The Madrid Windsor had a complete collapse of the structural steel above the 17 floor if I remember right. The complete collapse of the building was only stopped by the concrete core, which the WTC did not have. The Tehran high rise collapse was a complete collapse initiated by fire.


So the towers didn't have a concrete core.... that's the main problem!!!!

You'd be a laughing stock for suggesting a concrete core over a steel core in the towers

A pile-driver can smash concrete slabs into tiny fragments, and dust, like nothing.

Dropping objects onto a concrete slab can easily crush slabs into little pieces, as well.


Steel is used to reinforce concrete, because steel offers much more strength and support than concrete does....


What you hope to avoid - as usual - is that your claim is utterly worthless.

Your claim is not only pertinent to how the twin towers collapsed in this manner...your claim goes against fundamental principles of all known physical laws.


We have a structure. This structure supports a specific weight.

A failure occurs about 2/3 height of the structure.

The 1/3 top section of the structure loses all support at the same time, and drops down onto the lower 2/3 of the structure, which still remains completely intact.

That is the point when magically, 'collapse is inevitable'.

No. You CLAIM it is inevitable. So what? It's just another worthless claim.


Physics explains what happens to all such structures, since all structures hold to the exact same physical laws, which means it is proven, over and over again. No exceptions.

I've heard about how 'unique' they were, and impossible to replicate the collapse in any way.


Every collapse in history was either proven, or CAN be proven.....all but one, magical tower, which cannot, ever, be proven...


Do you think that structural failures cannot be explained in terms of known physics, specifically, on the collapse mechanism(s) involved in it? Throughout the entire event?

The towers would have a collapse mechanism(s), which explains everything in detail, throughout the entire process, from start to finish.


I've heard you say it, endlessly, and never prove anything. You cannot prove anything, of course. So you just say it, and hope it just drifts away, eventually.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I have repeatedly posted on how the concrete core at the Madrid Windsor stopped the building’s total collapse. Quoted more information on the Madrid Windsor in this post.

Stop making false arguments out of ignorance. By the why, where have you quoted from me to prove your claims I broke the laws of physics? So you did make false allegations?

Your dogmatic devotion to the lies of the truth movement just makes you look like an empty suite.

Ever think concrete and steel have different properties? And the concrete insulates the STEEL rebar embedded in the concrete which gives it added strength is protected during a fire?



MADRID FIRE REPORT PRAISES CONCRETE'S PERFORMANCE

www.architectsjournal.co.uk...

A survey of the fire-damaged structure of the Windsor Tower, Madrid, concluded that the concrete structure 'performed extraordinarily well in a severe fire'. The study, 'Fire in the Windsor Building, Madrid: Survey of the Fire Resistance and Residual Bearing Capacity of the Structure after the Fire', was carried out by the Instituto Technico de Materiales y Construcciones. It concluded that the 'need for - reproofing of steel members to guarantee their performance in the event of - re was recon-rmed'

-Break-

Structural failure happened with the collapse of the steel perimeter columns and the oor slabs collapsing as this edge support was taken away. The massive concrete transfer slab at the 20th oor prevented further progressive failure. The Concrete Centre is funding further research into the behaviour of the tower's concrete structure at the University of Edinburgh.




The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...


The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.

On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.









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



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Haven’t proven anything?

Then what is your explanation for inward bowing and buckling as seen in the video clip in this linked to thread?

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

You have not provided any credible theories by the listing of evidence on what caused the bowing and buckling as seen in video evidence of the tower’s collapse.

You have not proven the floor connections of the first floor hit by the falling upper sections of the towers would have not sheared.

You have not proven the floor connections had a dynamic load rating greater than the equivalent of being struct by six falling stories.

The towers had 11 and 29 stories fall into the floor systems.

It was the floor connections that failed after the initial buckling as attested to by the vertical columns that remained standing after the complete collapse of the floor system.

It is fact the vertical columns failed at a rate slower than the floor system, and only after the side to side support of the floor systems were removed.

In the context of you not providing any credible theory to stand on to supersede inward bowing and buckling leading to collapse, you not proving your claims of violations of the laws of physics, you not proving the floor connections had an infinite load rating (which would be a violation of physics), and you not understanding the roll of concrete cores in high rise buildings, there is little to prove.

You creating false arguments doesn’t change the only credible explanation for inward bowing and buckling is solely related to the jet impacts, fire insulation performance, and fires.

There is no proof of CD at the towers. None.



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



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




By: turbonium1
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The 1/3 top section of the structure loses all support at the same time, and drops down onto the lower 2/3 of the structure, which still remains completely intact.

That is the point when magically, 'collapse is inevitable'.

No. You CLAIM it is inevitable. So what? It's just another worthless claim.



Quote where I said the whole structure failed right after the buckling to “Magically” collapse.

Please stop creating false arguments.

The towers buckled at specific locations.

11, or 29, stores fall into the building below.

Distributing a falling load to the floor connections only rated to take the equivalent dynamic load of being hit by six falling stories. The falling mass grows in mass floor by floor, and shears floor connections from the vertical columns floor after floor.

Long sections of vertical columns are witnessesed in video evidence to have remained standing whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor systems.

Ther vertical columns only toppled once the side to side bracing of the floor systems were removed.

There is a difference between topping and collapse.



www.merriam-webster.com...
Topple
to fall from or as if from being top-heavy




www.merriam-webster.com...
Collapse
1 :to fall or shrink together abruptly and completely :fall into a jumbled or flattened mass through the force of external pressure a blood vessel that collapsed
2 :to break down completely :disintegrate




Please reference what I actually post. Not your fabricated arguments made in claims you can not back.


edit on 11-11-2017 by neutronflux because: Added to quote

edit on 11-11-2017 by neutronflux because: Affect and fixed

edit on 11-11-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed more

edit on 11-11-2017 by neutronflux because: Made wording more specific. Cited defs



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   
None of the steel collected by NIST was weakened by fires to the point of any failure.

So why do you keep claiming steel was exposed to fires which caused failure, from fires that NEVER caused any steel to weaken to the point of failure?

It's pure nonsense.


What about proving it is even possible?

Nothing built can replicate the collapse, and never will.


Could you ever build a structure, and then collapse it, the same way?

No.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
None of the steel collected by NIST was weakened by fires to the point of any failure.

So why do you keep claiming steel was exposed to fires which caused failure, from fires that NEVER caused any steel to weaken to the point of failure?

It's pure nonsense.


What about proving it is even possible?

Nothing built can replicate the collapse, and never will.


Could you ever build a structure, and then collapse it, the same way?

No.


Let’s think about how redicous this statement is.

Is it true pre 9/11 studies found the fire insulation at the WTC deficient.

Is it true the jet impacts knocked of fire protection from the steel.

Is it true as steel heats up, it expands, and becomes increasingly workable, and increasingly losses it ability to resist load.

By the laws of physics, the steel at the WTC heated by fires were weaken to a state greater than if it was at room temperature.


Are you saying the steel did not heat up and weaken at all?

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

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



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Here’s a link, do your own research...

www.nist.gov...

Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1-3C)

Link to PDF
ws680.nist.gov...



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

ws680.nist.gov...
Page 220 starts the Metallographic analysis of elements exposed to fire.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

And quote where I ever said the vertical columns that buckled failed do to heat. The bowing caused the load of the upper stories to be no longer transmitted to the foundation. The stain of the load was “caught” in the bowing. When the load was transferred off the foundation to the geometry of the bowing, the vertical columns buckeled.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

You are arguing against a religion with the conspiracy crowd.
Facts don't matter against faith.
They have faith in their convictions and you will not change that.

As time and facts come to light, their beliefs shift.
Exactly as religions have.



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

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?




In the example above the part of the STRUCTURE that the floor failure occured DID collapse completely from top to ground level.

Are you really going to argue with that, I have seen other comments you have made it's obvious like most people from your side you actually have NO understanding of construction materials or loadings.

The floors below the impact points may have been intact but the falling mass from above was IMPACTING the floor slab below and just so this sinks IN a quote from my post.


. 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


Do you actually understand the quote above thats the same process that caused the total collapse of the Twin Towers each floor slab (apart from the 3 service floors) were connected as show in the picture below.



Small angle cleats supporting the floor trusses.

Concrete has a better fire resistance than steel that's why when truther post pictures of other tower fires and say they didn't collapse the contruction was totally different in certain circumstances you would (or should that be wood) be surprised what survives a fire better than steel.



Yes bent steel over a wooden beam after a fire.

As for yor comments re steel being used to reinforce concrete thats true its there to help with tensile loads on the concrete.

Now I suggest you look up dynamic loads because that's what the lower parts of the structure had to resist during the collapse.


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



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Schmoe1223

CIA operative, Tim Osman stated right off the bat that he or his crew had nothing to do with that and also said to look deeper into the US govt for the culprit(s)
www.911review.com...



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: MalfunctionJunction


Tim binLaden and his gang of merry men were fall guys for the inside job that was 911.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I've always wondered why Truthers haven't been clamoring for the release of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then. Aren't you guys outraged about him being blamed for something he didn't do?

I'm sure he appreciates all of the internet posts on his behalf, though. Thoughts and prayers.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MalfunctionJunction


Tim binLaden and his gang of merry men were fall guys for the inside job that was 911.


So they never created, or murdered anyone through a terrorist plot? Where was the money funneled from for the documented purchase of the tickets that got the terrorists to board the jets, and live in the United States?
edit on 12-11-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

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.



To address two points you posted awhile back..

A few slivers of vertical columns somehow are evidence that all the core columns were slower to collapse than the rest of the structure. Brilliant logic!

The slivers didn't collapse 'whole seconds' later. THEY DIDN'T COLLAPSE UNTIL THEY CLEARED UP ALL THE DEBRIS, DAYS LATER. As images prove.


As for the speed of collapse, it was NOT 2/3 free fall speed. There is no valid evidence to support that claim. A few pieces left of inner column steel didn't even collapse, so that's a nonsensical argument. The seismic records don't indicate how long it took to collapse, in any way. This assumes no explosions went off before the collapses, or anything caused spikes in the sub-basement floors. It is absurd.


WTC 7 offers us adequate measurements of it's collapse speed, and proves it is nearly free fall speed.

This is measuring how long it took the 47 floors to collapse. Not when the little penthouse collapsed, and the pause after it collapsed. That is nonsense.

By that incredible logic, if part of the structure is demolished 20 minutes before the rest of it, in a CD, then it would have taken over 20 minutes to collapse, so it could not have been a CD.


Any excuse at all, right?



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 04:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux

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.



To address two points you posted awhile back..

A few slivers of vertical columns somehow are evidence that all the core columns were slower to collapse than the rest of the structure. Brilliant logic!

The slivers didn't collapse 'whole seconds' later. THEY DIDN'T COLLAPSE UNTIL THEY CLEARED UP ALL THE DEBRIS, DAYS LATER. As images prove.


As for the speed of collapse, it was NOT 2/3 free fall speed. There is no valid evidence to support that claim. A few pieces left of inner column steel didn't even collapse, so that's a nonsensical argument. The seismic records don't indicate how long it took to collapse, in any way. This assumes no explosions went off before the collapses, or anything caused spikes in the sub-basement floors. It is absurd.


WTC 7 offers us adequate measurements of it's collapse speed, and proves it is nearly free fall speed.

This is measuring how long it took the 47 floors to collapse. Not when the little penthouse collapsed, and the pause after it collapsed. That is nonsense.

By that incredible logic, if part of the structure is demolished 20 minutes before the rest of it, in a CD, then it would have taken over 20 minutes to collapse, so it could not have been a CD.


Any excuse at all, right?





Are you resorting to right out false claims. This has been posted for you repeatedly.




9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

BY CHRIS MOHR

www.skeptic.com...


3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.



9/11 - Towers did NOT fall at free fall speed!
m.youtube.com...

9/11 Footage shows core of both towers standing; Debunks Basement BombsTheory
m.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 13 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead of NIST's investigation of the collapses, said WTC 1 collapsed in about 11 seconds, and WTC 2 collapsed on about 9 seconds...

www.youtube.com...

It's funny to hear you all talk about how 9/11 truthers made up this claim, when it was the head of NIST's own investigation team who actually first claimed it!!

Good one.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join