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: 40
13
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Did anybody address the horizontal component of ejected material?

Uh, no they have not. They cannot explain how gravity and fires ejected massive pieces.




posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
Did anybody address the horizontal component of ejected material?

Uh, no they have not. They cannot explain how gravity and fires ejected massive pieces.


Another false argument.

It’s been explained to you again and again.

How can you explain it with mythical fizzle no flash demolitions?

Back to the repeated explanations.

A working model is a Newton’s cradled. Or billiards. You know, where items crash into each other and change direction.

In fact, a Newton’s cradle not only illustrates how items crashing into each other can cause lateral ejection. It also shows how items crashing into each other can cause upward lateral ejection.

Newton's Cradle - Incredible Science
m.youtube.com...

It’s amazing when potential energy with the equivalent of 200 tons of high energy explosives is converted to kinetic energy.

Or in the context of a 500,000 ton building. What would happen if a 100 ton chunk collides with a 5 ton chunk.
edit on 3-12-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 3-12-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Dec, 3 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
Did anybody address the horizontal component of ejected material?

Uh, no they have not. They cannot explain how gravity and fires ejected massive pieces.


What horizontal ejection? The truth movement claims the towers fell in their own footprints? Is that a truth movement lie?

Still like to know more about Richard Gages mythical fizzle no flash demolitions?
edit on 3-12-2017 by neutronflux because: Added more.

edit on 3-12-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed



posted on Dec, 5 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
It's not a false argument NF, it is a fact that utterly destroys the NIST explanation. And apparently makes you nervous.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

It is a false argument, it has been explained to you how “lateral” ejection occurred. The simple models showing how lateral ejection occurred are a Newton’s cradle, billiards, or even how a basketball through spin can jump back out of the hoop after being dragged down into the goal half way by gravity.

Or a falling 5 ton chunck of building fell on a part of the structure that was slanting, and slid out the side of the tower. One tower had about 60 stories of the vertical columns still standing after the complete collapse of the floor system. The other tower, 40 stories still standing.

Soooo....

One, the original claim was the towers fell in their own footprints. Does lateral ejection prove that was a lie?

Two, AE 9/11 Truth pretty much put all their faith in fizzle no flash explosives to push their false arguments. Please explain how fizzle no flash explosives caused horizontal/lateral ejection.

Three, the towers had to fall through the path of greatest resistance for a symmetrical collapse. Stange there were vertical columns still standing after the complete collapse? And a symmetrical collapse resulted in a lateral ejection?

Remember, a Newton’s cradle shows not only the transmission of kinetic energy through collisions causes lateral ejection, but also shows that it’s possible for the collision resulting in the object swinging up to a hight about equal to the starting potential energy.

The Physics of Newton's Cradle
m.youtube.com...
edit on 6-12-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed more

edit on 6-12-2017 by neutronflux because: Added three



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Ever drop a steel ball on concrete? It jumps back up with a good amount of energy, arcs up, out at slight angle, and comes back down usually at a distance from the spot of original impact. No mythical AE fizzle no flash explosives required......



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
Did anybody address the horizontal component of ejected material?

Uh, no they have not. They cannot explain how gravity and fires ejected massive pieces.



they haven't?


Then you sir really must trolling.

Its been explained numerous sorry now I could say countless times, at times very detailed with basic mathematical calculation showing how much weight and force was coming down which simple logic would make one understand yes things are going get crushed and things that aren't crushed will be thrown away from the collapse via the energy created by the collapse.


Why do you keep bringing this up?

Others have been confused by all the nonsense videos that bring this horizontal ejection up and trick people that don't think further and simply absorb the info because its presented in what seems to be logically and intelligent manner pointing out something new.

All it takes for any rational thinking person without a hidden agenda to grasp this is a simple explanation of how the energy of the collapsing building will create enough energy to throw large chunks out and blow out large pockets of air that if told was created by an explosions would be simply be believed because it seems logical without any further thinking.


All you do is post simple short posts parroting the idiotic statements that have been heard for 16 years.


Your posts are just rehashs of claims made in YouTube videos.

Can you think and create your own thoughts?


So many bang on about disinfo agents posting to muddy the waters and to potentially hide any truth that may be presented and its always directed at a skeptical point of view by countless members of ATS.


for years on end,

short posts saying


Nukes,


No planes,


etc.

when asked to form a thought of how anything you say is remotely possible,

deflect. deflect. deflect.

with more parroted nonsense out of YouTube videos.


I wish you have agenda, it just makes me more comfortable knowing that there really couldn't be people like that out there even with all the diversity and you simply have ulterior motives for posting what you do.



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: InhaleExhale


Neither you with this post, nor NF with the preceding post have explained anything at all, at least to my satisfaction.

Gravity works in only 1 direction, and on the surface of this planet that direction is towards the center of the planet.

NF's childish and irrelevant example of a steel ball is no explanation at all, unless one happens to be in the employ of NIST or some other government agency.

I am not trolling, but I understand why you would make that claim--your intellectual understanding of simple physics is so deficient that "trolling" is the only way you can attempt to defend or explain what happened there. I understand your frustration at trying to defend an indefensible notion sold by a government notorious for its mendacity.



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Again, the vertical columns lasted throughout the collapse of the floor system. The vertical columns remained standing after the last of the floor system landed in the resultant pile.

I have cited material that the floor connections were bent or sheared from over loading.

The floor trusses were ripped apart from the collapse.

The building collapse into itself. Shearing and bending floor connections, crashing into the floor trusses, and impacting/bouncing around the vertical columns.

It’s out of absolute ignorance or bias that you create a false argument in that 100 ton pieces of a building crashing, smashing, sliding, bouncing off each other, the floor system, and the vertical columns would not result in smaller pieces being ejected. What is a 5 ton piece of rubble in the scheme of a 500,000 ton building collapse. A collapse that released the equivalent potential energy of 200 tons of high energy explosives setting off to kinetic energy?

One, prove the physics behind a Newton’s cradle is false and not applicable to the WTC. Nothing more than the release of potential energy, creating kinetic energy, and resulting in out and up ejection of the balls in the model.

Two, the truth movement’s original claim was the towers fell in their own footprints? Was that a lie. How would lateral ejection occur if the towers only fell in their own footprints?

Three, AE 9/11 Truth claims that fizzle no flash explosives was used to bring down the towers because there is no video or audible evidence of CD. How would fizzle no flash explosives cause lateral ejection.
edit on 7-12-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed.



posted on Dec, 7 2017 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander
“Gravity works in only 1 direction, and on the surface of this planet that direction is towards the center of the planet.”

Let’s think about this statement in the context that AE argues falsely the collapse speed only could occur if the resistance of each floor was removed, and the use of mythical fizzle and no flash explosives?

How would cutting charges cause ejection?

If the resistance of the building was removed, what caused smaller pieces to be bounced out.

Seems you disproved CD at the towers. Oh my........



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Yes, the lateral ejection of very large and massive pieces is one of the topics not discussed by NIST, not discussed by the Zelikow Commission, and certainly not discussed in the mainstream media.

I suspect that we both know why such things are not discussed in public.

Instead, LOL, some "explain" it by offering a steel ball dropped on concrete. And of course, some actually buy into the sophistry. It's no wonder they so quickly withdrew those early FEMA photos from public view, no wonder the FEMA photographer became persona non grata and had to leave the country.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

I did know that the goals of the investigations was to teach freshman physics that can be explained with a Newton’s cradle.

Funny your false argument of cannot be explained is explained by the fundamentals of physics concerning potential energy, kinetic enery, and bodies in motion, and bodies colliding.

Yet you cannot explain for the false CD narrative how explosives too weak to even generate a audible sound would cause lateral ejection.

Would you like to address the real issues on the topic in context of the truth movement?

Again, can you answer....

One, prove the physics behind a Newton’s cradle is false and not applicable to the WTC. Nothing more than the release of potential energy, creating kinetic energy, and resulting in out and up ejection of the balls in the model.

Two, the truth movement’s original claim was the towers fell in their own footprints? Was that a lie. How would lateral ejection occur if the towers only fell in their own footprints?

Three, AE 9/11 Truth claims that fizzle no flash explosives was used to bring down the towers because there is no video or audible evidence of CD. How would mythical fizzle no flash explosives cause lateral ejection. Explosives so weak they couldn’t even generate a audible sound or pressure wave.

edit on 8-12-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

False argument by you. To say the WTC was not treated as a crime scene or evidence is a lie.

Again, every piece of the WTC pile humanly possible was collected.



Before Jan. 27, 2002, they've shipped 50,000 tons of WTC steel to China...

articles.chicagotribune.com...

The NIST investigation was officially announced on Aug. 21, 2002...

www.nist.gov...


That is 50,000 tons of evidence gone, before anyone even looked at it....

You see the problem now?



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Lateral ejections during the fall would probably due to air pressure inside the building. When something collapses like an accordian, well..... what happens with real accordians? The air inside gets rapidly and very strongly compressed.



As for free fall collapse, that actually does make sense for a very large building with interlocking support structure. If it had a hammer effect to get it started.

Falling debris would cut the horizontal supports, making the vertical supports basically like butter. The resistance would be small enough that the potential energy from the collapse itself would massively exceed the "chemical energy of deformation" or "energy required to break stuff". It would exceed it to such a degree that any difference between free fall and the speed it falls would be negligible.


But......... how did we get that "hammer effect"? How did the supports on the affected floors go straight from "strong enough to hold" to "so weak they offer perfect zero resistance" in the blink of an eye?

They should have gone from "strong enough to hold" to "not strong enough to hold, but still strong enough to be giving way slowly", to "still strong enough to be giving way a little faster" to "strong enough to still slow things down a little"................... etc. There is a continuous spectrum of failing support strength, and the supports skipped most of that spectrum.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: turbonium1




I don't know if it's in any of the reports, but I sure the hell know NIST's lead investigator SAID IT!



when you say this




NIST said the towers both fell at nearly free fall speeds, so you think they've made false claims?


and this




Unlike someone who deliberately ignores the fact it was NIST who stated the towers collapsed at nearly free-fall speed, and says it was a falsehood, and/or a lie, made up by 'truthers'.


implies you are saying this is documented somewhere in NIST documents.


Now you go say a lead investigator said this, so it wasn't NIST but a investigator that was giving an interview.


He was the head investigator of NIST, and he said it during an interview.

You think he was lying, then?

Or is he a complete moron, without a clue about how long it took to collapse?

What, exactly, are you trying to say here?



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

One, Please cite where the steel was shipped from. The pile or the lay down yards where it was identified before shipping.

Two, please cite what steel was shipped. Can you cite that it was actually structural steel from WTC 1, 2, and 3. Not steel from the other 10 or thirteen buildings destroyed beyond economic feasibility to repair. The total recycling steel estimated from the article you cited was 300,000 tons.

Three, the site was treated as a crime scene. You claimed it was not, so another false argument by exposed.

Four, NIST was not the only group collecting evidence. The collection of remains, personal effects, and evidence started immediately after 9/11. Local law enforcement were the grunts of the collection of items with FBI and engineering as over-site.

Five far as I know, all debris went to the lay down yards for assessment before being released.

Six, show steel was not assessed by local law enforcement, engineers, and the FBI before release.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Is this a false statement,

The towers had identifying marked on the structural steel that outlined its location in the towers. The structural steel was collected, identified, and assessed for importance before release.

Is this a false statement, funny that large amounts of WTC steel was kept for over a decade, given to foreign countries, and the fifty states as artifacts if the government was trying to destroy evidence.

I just read one of the largest pieces of steel kept for years was 47,000 lbs?



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

This....

“But......... how did we get that "hammer effect"? How did the supports on the affected floors go straight from "strong enough to hold" to "so weak they offer perfect zero resistance" in the blink of an eye? ”.

Has been explained in thread after thread.

Jets hit the steel, knocking off fire protection.

Steel looses about 50 of its ability to resist strain about 1000 degrees Celsius.

The fires heated up the unprotected floor tresses in the section of the towers where the impacts destroy outer vertical columns and core columns.

The WTC minimized cost by minimizing concrete usage beyond best practices. The WTC did not have concrete cores and mid supports along the floor trusses which is common practice.

The floor trusses on the surviving columns could not expand out, droopped down.

When the floor trusses cooled, they pulled in on the vertical columns. The vertical columns bowed and then buckeled when load of the upper stories of the towers was no longer transmitted to the foundation, but focused in the bowing of the vertical columns.

The video in this linked to thread shows bowing of vertical columns leading to collapse.

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

The floor trusses below the collapse could not handle the dynamic load of 11 or 29 stories of the tower collapsing. One floor of the towers were rated for a dynamic load only equivalent to six stories falling into them.

The falling upper stories sheared and bent floor connections. Ripped through floor trusses.

After the complete collapse of the floor systems, vertical columns stood whole second on end before tumbling down. Thus proving the towers did collapse through the greatest path of resistance, the vertical columns.
edit on 8-12-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Schmoe1223
I posted recently in another 9/11 thread, but I think I caught the tail end of it and didn't get any possible explanations, so I'll try again here.

I basically said I wouldn't put anything past our government, but if they indeed perpetrated 9/11, why wouldn't Osama bin Laden/al-quaida/Taliban have taken that opportunity to really drive home their idea of how evil the west is by simply saying "we didn't do it."

Seems to me their agenda would have been better served denying it than taking credit for it, at the very least they could've sown some discord.

I'm not looking for debates about how buildings should fall when crashed into by planes, I'm simply looking for discussion on what I said above.


For all we know he did.

Would any thinking person seriously think a statement of denial by Bin Laden would have been reported in the western media? Even if they did, how much airplay would it have got considering a denial by Bin Laden would only have strengthened the 'inside job' case.

I'd suggest the powers that should not be would do all in their power to ensure such a denial not be given any publicity at all,



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The floors were subjected to DYNAMIC loading what some on here obviously don't understand.

The floor trusses were attached at each end to steel angle cleats at the core and wall columns as the mass fell down inside the impact load got greater and greater.

Here is a link to an imapct force calculator Impact Calculator

So put some numbers in say a 10kg object dropped 3.6 mtr the height of a Tower floor if that object stopped over a distance of 10cm or 0.1 mtr look at the result in newtons divide that by 9.81 to get the force in kg's.

I will let you work that out and that's only 10kg and it's stopped over that distance a Tower floor slab the concrete alone was about 1000 tons or 1,000,000 kg's and they didn't stop until they hit the ground.




top topics



 
13
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join