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.

 

How people respond to 9/11 evidence counter to the official conspiracy theory

page: 15
26
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: kyleplatinum




It is clear the energy far exceeded the gravitational potential energy of the building.

That's a classic hand waving statement.
Show us the math to prove it.


NIST states:
"the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation"

But...NIST offers no calculations to support this theory, does not explain how "falling building mass" which explodes into powder retains enough energy to dislodge the floors below, and...does not explain the symmetry of collapse.

Fall times of over 25 seconds are expected with reasonable assumptions, yet the observed fall time for the Tower is extremely less that that.




posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum




Fall times of over 25 seconds are expected with reasonable assumptions, yet the observed fall time for the Tower is extremely less that that.



can you please stop posting this comedy gold.


did you not realize you posted this just a sentence before




But...NIST offers no calculations to support this theory, does not explain how "falling building mass" which explodes into powder retains enough energy to dislodge the floors below, and...does not explain the symmetry of collapse.



where are your calculations for those reasonable assumptions?

Whats reasonable to you I guarantee isn't and actually laughable for quite a few others.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

What am I desperate about. The root cause of fire and thermal stress for the WTC buildings’ collapse is based upon forensic evidence recovered by professionals that you claimed you wanted to happen, but push the false narrative it didn’t? The buckling that Is more than theory because it is actually caught in the video evidence. An event you have no root cause for? With no evidence the vertical core columns were ever cut. Especially in that the vertical columns are still standing in videos after the complete collapse of the floor system of the towers.

At least 4,000 plus voting members of the AIA support the root cause of WTC buildings collapse is fire and thermal stress.

And what researched, modeled, and peered reviewed alternative to fire / thermal stress as the root cause study would you like to supersede fire and thermal stress?

And I am not the one making false allegations aboust individuals posting?

Nor am I the one trying to move the argument away from the video, audio, picture, and seismic evidence.

Good luck with your false argument and personal attacks. You are not worth the time if you are just going to be blatantly insulting, blatantly ignore honest questions, blatantly ignore verified data, and blatantly be intellectually dishonest. And blatantly contradictory. You wanted sworn evidence of fire and thermal stress collapse, well the WTC 7 lawsuit that went to court has that. I think conspiracists have the same ethics as flat Earther’s. Just want to see who will cave in and jump on the bandwagon. Sad you treat the truth as a popularity game instead of wanting to put forth an argument to test it with the baptism of debate. Its not about questioning the government. It’s about exposing all lies. Not pushing false conspiracy narratives.


edit on 18-6-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 18-6-2018 by neutronflux because: Addec more

edit on 18-6-2018 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

So please explain what is more excepted as the root cause of the WTC collapses than fire and thermal stress by ANSI, NFPA, and the AIA? Please cite which root cause is backed by sworn testimony?



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Didn't William Rodriguez testify?



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

What does that have to do with the video, audio, picture, and seismic evidence? The forensic investigation. And the bulk of peer reviewed evidence that is backed by professionals groups like ANSI, NFPA, AIA. Would you like to create credible argument, and what issupported or not supported by the bulk of witnesses and actual evidence?



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Is that what the video asked you to ask?



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

This guy?



truthersaresanitychallenged.wordpress.com...

Truthers” often use the accounts given by William Rodriguez to “prove” their assertions that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition. However, the problem with that, as we see here, is that William Rodriguez has changed his story more times than most people change their underwear.


Can you provide a counter argument?



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Itisnowagain

What does that have to do with the video, audio, picture, and seismic evidence? The forensic investigation. And the bulk of peer reviewed evidence that is backed by professionals groups like ANSI, NFPA, AIA. Would you like to create credible argument, and what issupported or not supported by the bulk of witnesses and actual evidence?

Can you provide sworn testimonies from ANSI, NFPA, and AIA about 911 please? I can't find any.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: kyleplatinum




Fall times of over 25 seconds are expected with reasonable assumptions, yet the observed fall time for the Tower is extremely less that that.



can you please stop posting this comedy gold.


did you not realize you posted this just a sentence before




But...NIST offers no calculations to support this theory, does not explain how "falling building mass" which explodes into powder retains enough energy to dislodge the floors below, and...does not explain the symmetry of collapse.



where are your calculations for those reasonable assumptions?

Whats reasonable to you I guarantee isn't and actually laughable for quite a few others.



Laugh all you want.

Buildings are always much lighter at the top, which means they get alot stronger towards the bottom... But we all know this right?

The floors above the impact zone were much lighter than the floors below the impact zone.

Gravity was not enough to destroy the buildings and accelerate a mass through them. Gravity alone would result in a deceleration.

Strong evidence IS the acceleration.

Heavier/stronger resistance towards the bottom or ending of collapse. This is similar to a truck/tractor pull run.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

The vertical columns might taper with height. But it depends on the load capacity designed from floor to floor. Show the rated load capacity changed from floor to floor. Yes, the weight of holding up 29 floors vs 100 floors is different for the vertical columns. But the floor connections to vertical columns is dependent on what load the specific floor was designed to carry. Can you cite how the floor connections to the vertical columns for the 30th floor of the towers were different than the floor connections to the vertical columns for the 70th floor. Then the 71st floor might have a different load rating and floor connections because it a mechanical / maintenance floor? Or holds a vault. So the 71st floor might be the heaviest of all the floors.


edit on 18-6-2018 by neutronflux because: Added fixed

edit on 18-6-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed more



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum




Strong evidence IS the acceleration.



Then please define what the rates of acceleration were. Then what should be possible and not possible?

Again, the floor system fell at 67 percent the rate of free fall. The core columns fell at 40 percent of free fall.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

I would think you would google something before making claims like




The floors above the impact zone were much lighter than the floors below the impact zone.


I think the floors where pretty uniform in design?




www.scientificamerican.com...

Each steel floor deck was covered with four inches of concrete. "With almost an acre of area for each floor and figuring about 100 pounds per square foot of area," he estimated that "each floor system weighed about 3,200,000 pounds."




The mechanical floors.



ws680.nist.gov...

With the exception of the mechanical floors (Floors 7, 8, 41, 42, 75, 76, 108, and 109) which had rolled structural steel shapes, tenant floors had truss systems. As shown in Figure 5, each tenant floor consisted of 102 mm (4 in) thick, lightweight cast-in-place concrete on a fluted steel deck. Supporting the slab was a grid of lightweight steel bar trusses. The top bends (or “knuckles”) of the main truss webs extended 76 mm (3 in) above the top chord and were embedded into the concrete floor slab. This concrete and steel assembly thus functioned as a composite unit, that is, the concrete slab acted integrally with the steel trusses to carry floor loads.


Break

On beam-framed floors (generally the mechanical floors with heavier gravity loads), a damper connected the lower flange of a wide-flange beam (that spanned between the core and the perimeter wall) to a spandrel plate.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

USS HINSDALE (APA 120)

en.wikipedia.org...(APA-120)#/media/File:Hinsdale_APA-120_-_kamikaze.jpg

USS STERETT (DD 407)

www.ibiblio.org...

Explain how an aircraft can punch a hole is side of steel ship?

Can see from these photos from 1945 a Japanese Zero weighting in at less than 6000 lbs can ……..



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Floors near the bottom of the tower had significantly heavier steel columns - around 600 tons per floor.

The steel columns per floor at the top were more like 60 tons per floor.

Typical weight of 4,800 tons for floors near the bottom and 4,200 tons per floor at the top, (600 ton difference)

All floor systems got lighter towards the top.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: neutronflux

Floors near the bottom of the tower had significantly heavier steel columns - around 600 tons per floor.

The steel columns per floor at the top were more like 60 tons per floor.

Typical weight of 4,800 tons for floors near the bottom and 4,200 tons per floor at the top, (600 ton difference)

All floor systems got lighter towards the top.


Can you cite a source? And which floors? Are you confusing the mechanical floors that were at 7, 8, 41, 42, 75, 76, 108, and 109 as the heavy floors made for greater loading? Made with rolled structural steel shapes, vs the tenant floors that all used truss systems?

The vertical columns whould naturally be larger at the base of the towers. Steel columns seems to indicate the actual vertical columns the floors connect to.

Can you quote where the actual floor decking used “steel columns”? I think You are referring to the weight of the vertical columns which the floors connected to which fell after the complete collapse of the floor system. Not the actual decking that made up the floors of the tenant levels which connect to the steel columns?
edit on 18-6-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixec.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Can you cite a source in which the composition of the tenant floors used different gauge trusses and steel decking from floor to floor to change the weight of the floor actually suspended between the vertical columns?



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: MALBOSIA




You dont support the following conspiracy theory?



No





What do you think of people that dont take your theories seriously or believe they are valid or convincing?



again

are you hallucinating?

what theories of mine?

WTF are you on about?





De-evolved? What else would you call them?


someone who cannot follow what is said in a very short and simple conversation?

Ignorant of basic speech and how to converse.

Look seeing as you cannot understand that you quoted what I was on about when I said the human mind is devolving and you seem to think it was directed at .......? you? someone?

Not sure why you are so focused on what was clearly explained when it was posted then explained again after you replied.

Seeing as you are really troubled, here let me hold your hand and walk you through my comment about de-volving.



I simply said technology is evolving while it seems the human mind using that tech is de-volving.

How you get that I have theories and if people don't believe me and my non existing theories they are devolved is beyond me.



None of what you said above makes any sense.

So im de-evolved and need my hand held by to understand.

WTF does "tech" have to do with anything in this thread. Do you have another half-baked theory you want to share? You dont believe what Neufuk is pushing either?


(post by MALBOSIA removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You are the one that had to use false allegations.

You said you wanted a root cause investigated by professionals and backed by professionals? You said you wanted court testimony? You cannot answer simple questions?

So please explain what is more excepted as the root cause of the WTC collapses than fire and thermal stress by ANSI, NFPA, and the AIA? Please cite which root cause is backed by sworn testimony concerning WTC 7?

Its sad to see you only fool yourself?
edit on 18-6-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 18-6-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed.







 
26
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join