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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?