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: 37
13
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Lets at least get some figures correct each concrete floor slab weighed approx 1000 tons the amount of structural steel in one of the twin towers was around 90,000 tonns.

As stated before and for you benefit because obviously YOU don't look at or understand information given this is how the floor slabs are connected to the structure.



The ends of the floor trusses rested on and were bolted to the steel angle cleats in the above image.
Each floor is designed to support it's own weight and equipment people etc on a floor plus a saftey margin.

The FLOORS below the collapse area where the same apart from the 3 service floors.

In simple terms so YOU can understand each floor is designed to support the load on that floor & that floor ONLY.
Each floor was supported by the wall steel and the core steel.
So guess what floors can fall internally.

So in this picture I linked to earlier



The top floor slab fell on the one below that total mass fell on the next and repeat to ground level.

NO EXPLOSIVES REQUIRED.




posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Signs of explosives everywhere, serious explosives. Lateral ejection, 3 months worth of molten iron, extremely toxic air, explosions reported by many, large structural pieces bent like pretzels, pulverization of concrete.

Signs of explosives everywhere, but heavy denial by apologists for the official story.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
Signs of explosives everywhere, serious explosives. Lateral ejection, 3 months worth of molten iron, extremely toxic air, explosions reported by many, large structural pieces bent like pretzels, pulverization of concrete.

Signs of explosives everywhere, but heavy denial by apologists for the official story.


What about the picture above your post


As explained before people hear a very loud noise and will often call it an explosion, lateral ejection could happen for a number of reasons due to impact loads on structure, molten steel again lots of dispute over that but it was all below ground so again a few reasons why that could happen, toxic air lets see have a look at building materials that would have been turned to dust also materials in computrer screens and other electronic equipment. Bent structural steel lets see thounsands of tons of material falling and impacting parts of the structure, concrete floor slab 4.5 inches thick flooring grade falling from up to 1400 feet and impacting on other floors result dust.
edit on 20-11-2017 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2017 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008


There are 2 pictures above my post, and only one has anything to do with WTC. That one shows the towers under construction, but not after they were demolished on 911.

Say your point please.

The buildings at WTC did not come down from office fires as the government says they did. Neither of your pictures support the official story in any way.

Say your point please.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: wmd_2008


There are 2 pictures above my post, and only one has anything to do with WTC. That one shows the towers under construction, but not after they were demolished on 911.

Say your point please.

The buildings at WTC did not come down from office fires as the government says they did. Neither of your pictures support the official story in any way.

Say your point please.


YOU know well what the point is IDIOTS all over the net claim a top down to ground level collapse without explosives cant happen.

On SECOND picture so you have NO doubt what I am taking about a floor slab at the top fell on the one below that process finished at ground level. As all the CONNECTIONS on the slabs of that construction were the same for EVERY floor, just as the connections for the towers and like the towers floor slabs could fall internally that picture shows a collapse with NO explosives is that clear enough or are you just going to be a DH about it.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: wmd_2008


There are 2 pictures above my post, and only one has anything to do with WTC. That one shows the towers under construction, but not after they were demolished on 911.

Say your point please.

The buildings at WTC did not come down from office fires as the government says they did. Neither of your pictures support the official story in any way.

Say your point please.


YOU know well what the point is IDIOTS all over the net claim a top down to ground level collapse without explosives cant happen.

On SECOND picture so you have NO doubt what I am taking about a floor slab at the top fell on the one below that process finished at ground level. As all the CONNECTIONS on the slabs of that construction were the same for EVERY floor, just as the connections for the towers and like the towers floor slabs could fall internally that picture shows a collapse with NO explosives is that clear enough or are you just going to be a DH about it.


As demonstrated in this video



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008


OK, I get it. You offer a hypothetical example and solicit comments. Thanks for making that point, but it is fairly well irrelevant.

I am into analysis of what actually happened at WTC. Which is to say I'm not into hypotheticals that so far cannot repeat reality of what happened.

A rational analysis of what happened, what was observed at WTC, shows that gravity and office fires did not cause the damage observed, could not cause the damage observed.



posted on Nov, 20 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: wmd_2008


OK, I get it. You offer a hypothetical example and solicit comments. Thanks for making that point, but it is fairly well irrelevant.

I am into analysis of what actually happened at WTC. Which is to say I'm not into hypotheticals that so far cannot repeat reality of what happened.

A rational analysis of what happened, what was observed at WTC, shows that gravity and office fires did not cause the damage observed, could not cause the damage observed.


Another false argument by you. Fire causing inward bowing and buckling leading to collapse has be described to you over and over...

Pre 9/11 studies showed the WTC fire insulation was insufficient.

The WTC design used less concrete beyond normal engineering practices to minimize costs.

The floor trusses were longer than common engineering practices with no supports along their lengths.

The jets hit, and damaged numerous columns beyond their ability to support load. The load of the building was transferred to the columns retaining their integrity.

The jet impacts knocked of fire protect insulation.

Steel looses 60 percent of its ability to resist load around 1000 degrees Celsius.

The fires burned.

The floor trusses in the areas of the jet impacts heated up. Tried to expand in length. The floor trusses boxed in by surviving columns could not expand in length. The floor trusses trying to expand and weaken by heat sagged/bowed down in the middle. Upon cooling, the floor trusses contracted, caused isolated areas of vertical columns buckling. Isolated in the context in areas relative to the jet impacts.

A video of the buckling can be seen here
the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

The buckling lead to the collapse of the building above into the remaining building below. The load capacity of the floor connections were overloaded. The floor system of the towers were stripped away from the vertical columns.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 04:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: wmd_2008


OK, I get it. You offer a hypothetical example and solicit comments. Thanks for making that point, but it is fairly well irrelevant.

I am into analysis of what actually happened at WTC. Which is to say I'm not into hypotheticals that so far cannot repeat reality of what happened.

A rational analysis of what happened, what was observed at WTC, shows that gravity and office fires did not cause the damage observed, could not cause the damage observed.


Office fires can reach a 1000C, Structural damage, weakend steel and FLOORS that could drop internally in the structure like my example which truthers say can NEVER happen. That's why it's relevant to 9/11 as you people claim a top down collapse to ground level cannot happen answer that



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




Office fires can reach a 1000C, Structural damage, weakend steel and FLOORS that

You can prove this with a simple experiment at home with a steel needle and a paper match.
The lowly paper match will make the needle glow orange.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

I watched the clip over and over. All I see is inward bowing and the inward buckling of the outer vertical columns in a specific area. I see the vertical columns pulled in, the buckling, the collapse of the building that was above the buckling into the building below. Then I see the release of potential energy equivalent to at least 200 tons of high energy explosives. The release of energy ripping and pulling floor trusses apart and from vertical columns. Vertical columns that remained standing upright after the collapse of the floor system.


Maybe you cannot see how the mass was tilted on edge, always seen at an angle outward of the main structure afterwards, until it magically disappears into the massive billowing dust clouds!

Your entire argument is that this massive block of steel was crushing all the lower structure, and nothing could stop it.

Except the mass was tilting on edge, while the building collapses uniformly, evenly, floor by floor.....

The mass didn't tilt, in one building, while the mass tilted in the other building, but collapsed in the very same uniform, even, floor by floor way - most amazing!

To speak about a mass on top of a structure, it always holds up, or fails to hold up.

This 'extreme mass' argument is sheer nonsense.

The twin towers were massive structures, that's why they designed them to support a greater mass than any structures built before.

As buildings earlier were more massive than before, and those before them, and so on...


We once thought buildings cannot be designed over a specific height, ever. Being wood, or stone. But once steel made it possible. nothing seemed impossible, in future.


And there once was two great towers built 40 years ago, which were even higher than the iconic Empire State Building!

Designing the towers to support itself in all potential scenarios begs the question - how is it possible to know - before it's ever built - that it will support itself, etc... ?

Structural engineers, and other experts, know if a structure can withstand certain conditions.

You seem to think the towers had faulty design elements, and poor fire protection, and so on... Nobody accounted for such a fast speed, or such an aircraft hitting it, at the time, either...

Ignoring over a century of aircraft developments, nobody believes our aircraft will change one bit, in the following 50+ years in future. So nobody designs the buildings, in thinking it won't be needed, so why bother!!



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: wmd_2008


OK, I get it. You offer a hypothetical example and solicit comments. Thanks for making that point, but it is fairly well irrelevant.

I am into analysis of what actually happened at WTC. Which is to say I'm not into hypotheticals that so far cannot repeat reality of what happened.

A rational analysis of what happened, what was observed at WTC, shows that gravity and office fires did not cause the damage observed, could not cause the damage observed.


Another false argument by you. Fire causing inward bowing and buckling leading to collapse has be described to you over and over...

Pre 9/11 studies showed the WTC fire insulation was insufficient.

The WTC design used less concrete beyond normal engineering practices to minimize costs.

The floor trusses were longer than common engineering practices with no supports along their lengths.

The jets hit, and damaged numerous columns beyond their ability to support load. The load of the building was transferred to the columns retaining their integrity.

The jet impacts knocked of fire protect insulation.

Steel looses 60 percent of its ability to resist load around 1000 degrees Celsius.

The fires burned.

The floor trusses in the areas of the jet impacts heated up. Tried to expand in length. The floor trusses boxed in by surviving columns could not expand in length. The floor trusses trying to expand and weaken by heat sagged/bowed down in the middle. Upon cooling, the floor trusses contracted, caused isolated areas of vertical columns buckling. Isolated in the context in areas relative to the jet impacts.

A video of the buckling can be seen here
the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

The buckling lead to the collapse of the building above into the remaining building below. The load capacity of the floor connections were overloaded. The floor system of the towers were stripped away from the vertical columns.


No hope of ever proving such absurd claims, so you just repeat it, endlessly, and hope nobody notices it's all bs.

You seem to believe that a load capacity doesn't account for potential failures, which is hardly the case here.

How many other buildings were specifically designed to withstand plane impacts? Extreme winds?

Most buildings don't usually need to be designed for plane impacts. Unlike the twin towers, which were specifically designed for such a scenario.


A half-wit knows that airplanes are always advancing, from day one, to now, and so aircraft will continue to advance, in the future.

They all would know planes will not be frozen in time, as you wish everyone else to believe. Nothing stands still, and they would obviously understand that...without a doubt.

What they have said - many times - is that the towers were designed with multiples more than acceptable limits. Everything was built in the towers beyond anything built before.

Somehow, you spout all this crap about fires weakening the steel, to fail, and caused, or mainly caused, both initial collapses.

What a crock!


Does anyone notice that they never have proof for this claim?


Because they have no proof, of any sort.


What did the steel samples show, or do you even know ?



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You need to stop and come back to reality, and cite actual facts. Stop creating false arguments.

The buildings were damaged, and had a significant number of vertical columns removed by jet impacts. You know, the steel columns that take the load of the floors and transfers the loads to the foundations.

I have specifically stated the margin of safety for one floor of the towers. All you have is lies and false arguments. Quote where you have refuted my posts on the load capacities of the towers floors.

One floor of the towers could support:
1) the static load equivalent to about the weight of 12 stories of a tower.
2) the dynamic load equivalent to 6 falling stories of a tower.

The bowing of the vertical columns caused by drooping floor truess cooling and contracting, lead to buckling resulted in what? 11 stories falling into one tower. And 29 floors falling into another tower. Dynamic loads well above the redundant capabilities of the structures floor systems. Falling masses that ripped through floor trusses and sheared floor to column connections. The vertical columns only toppled after losing the side to side support of the floor systems.

Is this false. The structures were heavily damaged by the jet impacts. A significant number of vertical columns that was the support for the structures were removed. Significant in the structures had to shift loads to surviving vertical columns.

Is this false, the jet impacts compromised the redundant capabilities of the towers and fire insulation. The towers servived the jet impacts because of the safety margins.

If fire insulation is removed, what is the safety redundancy to fire? Sprinkler systems that had their piping severed by the jet impacts?

And it was the floor systems that failed in the towers, not the vertical columns. As attested to over and over. The vertical columns withstood the initial collapse of the floor systems. The vertical columns, as proven by video evidence, only toppled after the complete collapse of the floor systems.

Richard Gages and AE 9/11 Truth’s claim the symmetrical collapse only could occur through the path of greatest resistance is a lie.

For your false narrative of demolitions at the tower:

Explain how demolitions could be placed to create the relatively slow inward bowing that lead to buckling as seen in the video from the linked to thread:
the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

What evidence is there of CD?

The claim of the truth movement is the resistance of each floor of the towers had to be removed. Can you cite at a minimum how many charges were needed. Or an estimate per floor?

Where were the charges placed.

Rigging the floor by floor CD would take months with a full crew doing the work.

How would a sophisticated floor by floor CD system requiring precise timing for a never before high rise top down CD servive jet impacts and fires that cut elevator cables, fire mains, and took out building utilities?

Why is it I can answer you concerns with physics and video evidence, but you ignore questions leveled at you?
edit on 25-11-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 25-11-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

And I am still waiting on you to directly quote from my posts to back you claims I am violating the laws of physics.

Or do you admit you use false and intellectual dishonesty arguments. Proving you have no credibility?



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

True or false, I have posted repeatedly examples of what are considered spontaneous building collapses from being massively overloaded. Building that stood for a time, with no external force causing damage, and failed solely because of loads too massive.

Your 40 year argument for the towers that suffered external damage from jet impacts, impacts the severed vertical columns causes load redistribution to surviving columns, removing fire insulation, cutting sprinkler service, and fires that caused structural failure is completely misleading and pure BS.

True or false, the Madrid Windsor had structural steel failure because of fire. There was no external forces, just fire. The only thing that prevented a total building collapse was a concrete core which the WTC towers did not have.

Why are you arguments based on lies and false arguments?



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I find it odd you would rather rant than cite actual facts, imply false things which you have no proof I posted, and avoid answering questions.

You are a textbook case of a conspiracist that doesn’t have proof, can only post in the style of a hissy fit, and advoids citing of facts and honest debate at all cost?



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

What is it like to have no credible argument, and make false statements about my posts. Still waiting on you quoting from my statements where I am violating the laws of physics?

Sitill whating on you to refute the stated load capacities of the floors at the twin Towers?

True or false, Your 40 year argument totally ignores the towers had significant damage, had vertical columns removed, had fire insulation stripped away, under went the stresses of load redistribution, fires hot enough to weaken steel and cause failure, and the thermal and dynamic stresses of uneven heating up and cooling down?
edit on 25-11-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

What are your arguments for CD again?

The lie the towers fell at the rate of free fall.

The lie the towers fell through the path of greates resistance.

The lie there was too much dust.

The lie the towers fell in their own footprints, but thermite or fizzle no flash explosives caused lateral ejection.

Your argument the towers stood for 40 years. An argument that completely ignores the structural damage from jet impacts, fires, and thermal stress.



posted on Nov, 25 2017 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I never know what to make of posters like you? Your arguments are so lacking in fact, intellectual honesty, and credibility, are you trying to make conspiracists look bad?



posted on Nov, 26 2017 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You need to stop and come back to reality, and cite actual facts. Stop creating false arguments.

The buildings were damaged, and had a significant number of vertical columns removed by jet impacts. You know, the steel columns that take the load of the floors and transfers the loads to the foundations.

I have specifically stated the margin of safety for one floor of the towers. All you have is lies and false arguments. Quote where you have refuted my posts on the load capacities of the towers floors.

One floor of the towers could support:
1) the static load equivalent to about the weight of 12 stories of a tower.
2) the dynamic load equivalent to 6 falling stories of a tower.

The bowing of the vertical columns caused by drooping floor truess cooling and contracting, lead to buckling resulted in what? 11 stories falling into one tower. And 29 floors falling into another tower. Dynamic loads well above the redundant capabilities of the structures floor systems. Falling masses that ripped through floor trusses and sheared floor to column connections. The vertical columns only toppled after losing the side to side support of the floor systems.

Is this false. The structures were heavily damaged by the jet impacts. A significant number of vertical columns that was the support for the structures were removed. Significant in the structures had to shift loads to surviving vertical columns.

Is this false, the jet impacts compromised the redundant capabilities of the towers and fire insulation. The towers servived the jet impacts because of the safety margins.

If fire insulation is removed, what is the safety redundancy to fire? Sprinkler systems that had their piping severed by the jet impacts?

And it was the floor systems that failed in the towers, not the vertical columns. As attested to over and over. The vertical columns withstood the initial collapse of the floor systems. The vertical columns, as proven by video evidence, only toppled after the complete collapse of the floor systems.

Richard Gages and AE 9/11 Truth’s claim the symmetrical collapse only could occur through the path of greatest resistance is a lie.

For your false narrative of demolitions at the tower:

Explain how demolitions could be placed to create the relatively slow inward bowing that lead to buckling as seen in the video from the linked to thread:
the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

What evidence is there of CD?

The claim of the truth movement is the resistance of each floor of the towers had to be removed. Can you cite at a minimum how many charges were needed. Or an estimate per floor?

Where were the charges placed.

Rigging the floor by floor CD would take months with a full crew doing the work.

How would a sophisticated floor by floor CD system requiring precise timing for a never before high rise top down CD servive jet impacts and fires that cut elevator cables, fire mains, and took out building utilities?

Why is it I can answer you concerns with physics and video evidence, but you ignore questions leveled at you?


You didn't even answer anything I asked, or said, in my last post. I asked if you knew what the steel samples showed. The steel collected by NIST. Specifically, they were instructed to seek out, and collect, any steel that has been, or perhaps was, exposed to fires, and any damaged steel. Impact damage and fires were already the official causes of both collapses. They only looked for any evidence to support their pre-determined conclusion, that fire and impact damage caused both collapses, nothing else.

Nobody would have known what caused the collapses before investigating ALL of the evidence. They CANNOT know it was caused only by fires and impact damage before examining all of the physical evidence at Ground Zero.

They could have a theory that it was only caused by fires and impact damage, that's fine. But they have to examine ALL of the evidence before making any sort of firm conclusions.

What is the point of investigating a collapse if you don't examine ALL of the evidence, which is right in front of them? It is not excused away. It is their responsibility to examine all the evidence. It doesn't matter how much steel and debris they need to sift through. It is ALL crucial evidence.

But they cherry-pick anything to support their conclusion, and nothing else matters.

Suppose there were bombs planted in the towers by other 'evil' terrorists, who were also involved? Why would they not even consider looking for evidence of explosives, in the debris, since they'd already tried to bomb the tower only a few years earlier.

This should be a clue to you, that the investigation had the evidence, cherry-picked only evidence to support their pre-determined conclusion, and ignored all the remaining evidence. because it didn't support their conclusion.

Any moron knows if terrorists were involved, there is a strong possibility of explosives. Because they JUST TRIED TO BOMB THE TOWER A FEW YEARS AGO.

'Hey, guys. Let's collect all of the fire/damaged steel, and nothing else.'

'Shouldn't we also search for any evidence of other possible causes, like, um, explosives?'

'Why would there be any sort of explosives in the towers?''

'Because they'd already tried to bomb the towers, for one thing. And obviously they had planned the attack on the towers, well beforehand. Since they've tried to bomb it once before, and they were planning to smash into the towers with planes on 9/11, why wouldn't they have also planted explosives in the towers?''


This last question is something I'd like YOU to address, for once... Why would they not look for evidence of OTHER causes, like explosives? Think hard. Think why all of them ignore everything that doesn't fit their 'theory'...



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join