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.

 

WTC Challenge

page: 43
4
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by svenglezz
Like mentioned before we need some Structural Engineers here.....
Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven


So what would happen if a "structural engineer", let's say a very highly qualified one, told you "The only way those buildings could have collapsed the way they did was with planted explosives."?

Would you, first off, believe him?

Would you suddenly see the light and agree there is a possibility it was controlled?

Would you start to think for yourself?

Or would you dismiss the structural engineers claim, 'cause you can't wrap your mind around the reality of your government?

Or would you except what the engineer says because he's a self professed "expert", and start parroting the theories of the opposition?

Or would you think for yourself, and express your own views on the WTC problem?


I'm seriously interested in your answers Sven, I'd like to know, then maybe I can decide once and for all if you're really 8 yrs old, you're just a Troll, or you are a dis-info agent.

AP&F...

"Think for yourself, it could do wonders for the Human Race"


I'd would be the one to believe the engineer.




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
The Bush administration ignored the issue of terrorism from the moment it assumed office:

They ignored the final report of the Hart-Rudman commission, the Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change, that was issued on January 31, 2001
They blocked Senate hearings on the Hart-Rudman commission's report, scheduled for the week of May 7, 2001, by announcing a brand new commission led by Vice President Dick Cheney - which never met before 911
They ignored repeated requests from the Hart-Rudman commission from January 2001 to September 6, 2001, when National Security adviser Condoleezza Rice said she would "pass on" their concerns
They ignored repeated requests from Senator Dianne Feinstein to restructure US counter-terrorism and homeland defense programs, starting in July 2001 and continuing through September 10, 2001, when Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff told Feinstein to wait 6 months
They ignored the report of the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety and Security
The Bush administration changed Bill Clinton's policy towards Afghanistant to appease Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their Saudi backers to promote the interests of oil companies, putting profits for campaign contributors ahead of fighting terrorism:

They prevented FBI terrorism experts from investigating Saudi Arabian ties to Al Qaeda before 911, leading to the resignation of FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill only two weeks before 911
They ordered the Naval Strike Force - which President Clinton deployed near Afghanistan on 24-hour alert in order to strike Osama Bin Laden - to "stand down" before 911
They gave $43 million to the Taliban in April 2001
When appeasement failed, the Bush administration then prepared for war against Afghanistan:

They issued an ultimatum to the Taliban in July 2001, telling them to turn over Osama Bin Laden and permit Unocal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan in return for a "carpet of gold" - or face a "carpet of bombs"
They prepared a National Security Presidential Directive on September 9, 2001, a detailed "game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the Earth"
The Bush administration ignored numerous warnings from US and foreign agencies:

They ignored warnings as early as June from the National Security Agency's Echelon electronic spy network that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture
They ignored warnings from an FBI agent in Phoenix on July 10, 2001 about suspicious Arab pilots with ties to Al Qaeda who were training in a local flight school, urging a nationwide investigation of Arab students in flight schools
Bush personally ignored warnings from the CIA on August 6, 2001 that Al Qaeda planned to hijack US planes
They ignored warnings from Jordanian intelligence in the summer that a major attack was planned inside the US using airplanes
They ignored warnings from Israeli intelligence in August that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent, organized by a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation
They ignored warnings from Russian intelligence in August that at least 25 terrorist were trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan to attack US targets, with future plans to attack financial, nuclear, and space facilities
They ignored warnings from Moroccan intelligence in August that Bin Laden was "very disappointed" by the failure of the 1993 WTC bombing, and planned "large-scale operations in New York in the summer or autumn of 2001"
They rejected a search warrant requests by FBI agents in Minneapolis for Moussaoui's computer disk
They ignored warnings from Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak on August 31 of an impending attack on the US
They ignored phone calls from Abu Zubaida, bin Laden's chief of operations, to the United States that were intercepted by the National Security Agency shortly before 911
They ignored an extroardinary number of "puts" on the stocks which were hardest hit by the 911 attacks, including American and United airlines, in the days leading up to 911
The Bush administration failed to take meaningful precautions against a terrorist attack when so many warnings were being issued:

Bush went on vacation for the month of August, after only six months on the job
They allowed counterterrorism agencies to "stand down" from the highest level of alert before August 6, 2001, despite repeated warnings from CIA director George Tenet
The FAA knew about concerns that Moussaiou would hijack a 747 in August 2001, but failed to warn the airlines
They failed to assign more sky marshalls or to make cockpit doors more secure
They changed FAA policy to prohibit pilots from carrying guns
They failed to increase the readiness levels of our Air Defense
On 911, Bush failed to take decisive action:

George W. Bush said on two occasions that he saw the first plane hit the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m. on 911, and was told by Andrew Card about the second plane hitting the World Trade Center at 9:05 a.m. - yet Bush did nothing but listen to a children's story until 9:30 a.m. instead of ordering fighter jets to intercept all hijacked planes immediately
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney ordered the Pentagon to shoot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania at 9:55 a.m., but could have shot down the other three flights if they had not waited so long to act
Following 911, Bush used the tragedy to promote the agenda of his wealthy and powerful supporters:

Bush pushed through the USA Patriot Act, which rewarded right-wing opponents of freedom and civil liberties
Bush demanded additional tax cuts for the wealthy using the pretense of "stimulating" the economy
Bush massively increased defense spending, to the direct personal benefit of his father and his cronies in the Carlyle Group
To cover up his failures, the Bush administration resorted to stonewalling, fingerpointing, and lies about 911:

They have continually lied about the extent of the warnings about the 911 attack

Shortly after 911, Ari Fleischer declared flatly that there were "no warnings"
When it was revealed in May 2002 that the CIA briefed Bush personally on August 6, 2001, they claimed that the briefing did not address terrorist attacks in the US; then they claimed it was a "low-level" briefing based on only one warning
Condoleezza Rice said, "I don't think anyone could have predicted that these people... would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." (5/16/02)

The Pentagon commissioned a study in 1993 called "Terrorism 2000", which predicted multiple simultaneous attacks, the use of airplanes as weapons, targeting of large landmarks and financial centers, etc.
A Fedex employee tried to crash a DC-10 into FedEx HQ in Memphis in 1994, but was apprehended
An Islamic fundamentalist group hijacked an Air France flight and loaded it with 27 tons of fuel to destroy the Eiffel Tower, but special forces stormed the plane on the ground
Abdul Hakim Murad and Ramsey Yousef conceived of 'Project Bojinka' in 1995, a plan to blow up 11 US airline flights over the Pacific in 1995, and to crash airplanes into the Pentagon and the CIA, which definitely caught the attention of counter-terrorism experts in the US
The Library of Congress Report on The Sociology And Psychology Of Terrorism warned in 1999 about suicide hijackers
The Pentagon conducted a drill in December 2000 to respond to an airline crashing into the Pentagon
U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July 2001 that Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations
They did everything possible to block an independent commission investigation

Bush and Cheney personally called Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle urging him not to conduct an investigation
When pressure for an independent commission became too strong, they suddenly announced warnings of another attack - although they did not raise the official alert level above yellow, leading to widespread speculation of a deliberately false alarm to stop the momentum
When the Independent Commission finally began its work, Bush used Nixon's dictatorial doctrine of "Executive Privilege" to deny commissioners access to crucial documents
George W. Bush himself has repeatedly JOKED about the 911 attack

"Lucky me. I hit the trifecta," George W. Bush, shortly after 9/11 - quoted by Bush Budget Director Mitch Daniels, 11/28/01

Link



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimmefootball400

I'd would be the one to believe the engineer.


OK, . . .

How about a whole society of engineers?

some more comments.



ASCE Report


Hopefully the engineers that read STRUCTURE magazine read the reports also.

These guys didn’t seem to have any problems with the conclusions drawn from the report. The did have some comments on the recommendations, however.



More interesting reponses Note that these people also do not agree with NIST on some of their recommendations also, but no one has found any fault with the collapse sequence.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   
No steel structure building had ever collapsed by fire, let alone falling in its own footprint. Take a look at this construction picture, 47 steel columns that are used for the core of the building.


Now here are the few shots I could find of the interior. I have seen video footage of the iterior and these of course do not do it any justice.




How does an airliner penetrating the building from one side, distribute the burning fuel to all 47 of these columns? I mean really this is an office building, that is built like a building within a building. You cannot get the fuel to spread evenly and heat all 47 of these columns to the same temperature, at the sames exact time to get this thing to collaspe all th way around at th same time.

If this was to happen, it would topple towards the entry point of the aircraft which at that point has become the structures weakest point.

Some will say, well the aircraft stripped the fireproofing from the steel. Look at those pictures there is no way that the fireproofing will get stripped off of the farside of the entry point of the aircraft. There is not any possible way you could heat it evenl;y at the same rate of time to get both of these buildings to go straight down.

Why has a steel structured building never in history collapsed due to fire, bu they did three times that day? Dont tell me extrordinary one of a kind event, because I have seen repots and pictures of high rises burning for days gutting more than five floors and no collapse. Dont even try and claim it was because a plane rammed it because then you woud hve to admit the building would have biased its fall towards the side of the building the aircrafted entered.

Think for yourself.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I just wonder if anyone who received the WTC steel thought of testing it for explosives residue
before it was melted down?

There was also an asbestos removal bid after the WTC towers fell, but I also remember hearing somewhere that the owners had received a bid before all this went down.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   
well, if i, billybob, were one of the engineers at NCSEA, i would be intelligent enough to notice the extreme "book burning" that has been going on since nine one one.
would i point fingers, or just agree with the good recommendations, and GENTLY "dis" the rest?

duh.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
How does an airliner penetrating the building from one side, distribute the burning fuel to all 47 of these columns? I mean really this is an office building, that is built like a building within a building. You cannot get the fuel to spread evenly and heat all 47 of these columns to the same temperature, at the sames exact time to get this thing to collaspe all th way around at th same time.


Okay. Let's start at the beginning.



  1. The impact of the aircraft physically severed a number of exterior columns where the plane hit the building and also a few columns opposite the impact point. For WTC 1, this was past the core area on the opposite side of the building. For WTC 2, this was on the opposite corner from the impact point.
  2. In both impacts, significant portions of the aircraft fuselage or wings swept through the core areas, destroying the exit stairwells, cutting water risers, severing elevator cables, and damaging the core beams and columns.

  3. We can't know the exact extent of the damage, but we can make reasonable guesses. NIST developed a computer model and ran simulations with different values for the numerous possible variables (i.e. aircraft speed, angle of entry etc.) The results of these simulations are presented in the report for the range of possible damage effects.

  4. Common sense tells us that there were three major damage categories

    A) The column was completely severed
    B) The column was significantly bent (bending a column out of plane significantly reduced the load that it can cary)
    C) The column received minimal physical damage, but the fireproofing was knocked of by the shock of the impact and force of the building and aircraft debris.

  5. If you sever or significantly damage a column, then it can no longer carry the building loads it was designed to carry. Since these loads do not go away, the adjacent columns now have to carry the weight formerly carried by the damaged columns.

  6. Columns closest to impact area would have recieved the highest amount of damage. Other columns with less physical damage would of had the fireproofing scoured off by the impact forces.

  7. Columns closest to the impact area would have been exposed to the heart of the fuel and building debris fed fires.

  8. As these columns heated up, they would have gradually lost their ability to support the loads they were designed to support, and the additional loads transfered to them by the significantly damaged, nearby columns.

  9. In addition to the damage to the columns, there was extensive damage to the floor slabs in the impact areas.

  10. The impact damage, and the fires caused the floor slabs to sag, thus the forces that the floor slabs were exerting against the exterior and core columns changed from vertical compression forces to inward tension forces.

  11. The change in the forces caused the exterior columns to bow inward significantly.

  12. The bowing pulled the whole side of the building inward up to 10 inches.

  13. This inward bowing further reduced the loads the columns were able to carry.

  14. the gradual accumulation of changes to the loading of the columns caused them to fail one by one until a runaway collapse started. In other words, the remaining, undamaged columns were no longer able to support the building.






    If this was to happen, it would topple towards the entry point of the aircraft which at that point has become the structures weakest point.


    uh, it did.

    in both cases, the tops of the buildings rotated slightly toward the damaged areas at the start of the collapse. once the building started downward, however, gravity took over.


    Some will say, well the aircraft stripped the fireproofing from the steel. Look at those pictures there is no way that the fireproofing will get stripped off of the farside of the entry point of the aircraft. There is not any possible way you could heat it evenl;y at the same rate of time to get both of these buildings to go straight down.


    It wasn't necessary to do that. At some point the undamaged areas became unable to support the load that they were designed to support as well as the loads transfered to it from the damaged areas.

    Steel is not that strong. These buildings were huge. there is no way that they would have toppled like trees. the structure would not have withstood such a sideways movement.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

I just wonder if anyone who received the WTC steel thought of testing it for explosives residue
before it was melted down?


Can you imagine if they did? What if the Chinese government has irrefutable proof that it was a demoition, and were blackmailing the U.S. Fed. Gov.? Seems a mess we dont want to have happen.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   
i notice the architectural record TOTALLY questioned MANY of the NIST recommendations.
notably, the historical(actual historical, LOL) record of fire preformance in office buildings has been EXEMPLARY.


The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) released a study of high-rise building fires in September 2001. "This study indicates that in the 14-year period between 1985 and 1998 there were a total of 7 fire fatalities in all of the high-rise office buildings throughout the United States," says Schulte.



"NFPA fire statistics show that our nation has never been more fire safe (and firefighters have never been safer), yet the NIST report is written as if fire safety is a major problem in the United States," says Schulte. "As a fire protection engineer with 29 years of experience in the field, I strongly disagree with this conclusion. Since the early 1970's, there has been much progress in the fire safety field. I would hope that the Congressional Science Committee would begin asking NIST for its basis for proposing such radical changes in the fire safety field, particularly in light of the excellent fire safety record of commercial building and, in particular high rise buildings."


jeez, howard! whose "side" are you on?


that's from your link! hee hee.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Okay. Let's start at the beginning.



  1. The impact of the aircraft physically severed a number of exterior columns where the plane hit the building and also a few columns opposite the impact point. For WTC 1, this was past the core area on the opposite side of the building. For WTC 2, this was on the opposite corner from the impact point.
  2. In both impacts, significant portions of the aircraft fuselage or wings swept through the core areas, destroying the exit stairwells, cutting water risers, severing elevator cables, and damaging the core beams and columns.



Where in the world did you get that information? An aluminum aircraft goping through hardened steel support structures, all the way to the otherside? There is no way to even prove this because the buildings fell down and were obliderated.

I am too lazy to even refute you line for line, it would be a lesson in futlity anyhow, so I will just pick the beginning of your argument. A softer material, like aluminum hits hardened steel at over 500 miles an hour especially after crashing through the outer structure is not going to get through the otherside if the building. You may have things like the engines and landing gear punch through but these are only going to make holes.

There is no way you will get enough destruction to evenly distibute the fuel. Fuel isnt hot enough without pure oxegon to make that steel malable anyway.

Have you ever looked at the buildings fall? Nearly right off the bat the weight of the upper floors goes away due to them being pulverised and the mass has disapated and lost its punch. It would have stopped collapsing about half way down.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i notice the architectural record TOTALLY questioned MANY of the NIST recommendations.
notably, the historical(actual historical, LOL) record of fire preformance in office buildings has been EXEMPLARY.



The issue has to do with the recommendations, not the conclusions. They are two separate things.

Notice that none of these organizations questioned the conclusions as to the cause of the collapse.

There is some resistance to the recommendations because architects and engineers like lightweight construction methods. There are quite a few buildings out there with similar construction styles to the WTC towers.

Also the nature of the fire load in modern office buildings has changed considerably from 30 years age. More plastic, more paper, etc.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Look at this picture below HR, notice how the flame is a deep red? This is a sure sign of a fire that is not burning very hot, I have seen factory fires where the fire is white hot, now that is a hot fire. Before you argue with me on this my college courses were Fire Science. I have been to many many fire scenes in my career. Now notice the black smoke, another indication of a fire that is exhuasing itself and not burning very hot.



In all of these versions of the same picture you see a woman standing in the gaping hole. The next shot is a blowup view so you can see that it is definatly a woman. In fact her husband identified her. If you have ever been near a fire hot enough to make hardened steel malable, then you would know she would have not been standing in this picture.


Nuff said



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Where in the world did you get that information? An aluminum aircraft goping through hardened steel support structures, all the way to the otherside? There is no way to even prove this because the buildings fell down and were obliderated.


You seem to think that the core walls were made of steel plate. They weren't, they were made of 2" thick drywall.

The airplane hit the north vace of WTC 1.

Look at the south face, shortly after the impact.



There is a big hole in the middle of the south face of the building.

In fact, the impact knocked an exterior column tree clean off the building, it fell about a block and a half south of the WTC 2.






posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Molten aluminum pouring off of the impact floors


Is that white hot enough for you?




Nuff said



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Where in the world did you get that information? An aluminum aircraft goping through hardened steel support structures, all the way to the otherside?


You seem to think that the core walls were made of steel plate. They weren't, they were made of 2" thick drywall.


Now Howard, LGM referred to "hardened steel support structures". Why is it you rebutt with attempting to turn his comment of the core structure into a comment of drywall? He did not, clearly, say "walls" - he said "structure".

Surely, if a lowly construction worker understood his comment, you did - or was that a wasted attempted to divert?

Ugh

Misfit



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misfit

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Where in the world did you get that information? An aluminum aircraft goping through hardened steel support structures, all the way to the otherside?


You seem to think that the core walls were made of steel plate. They weren't, they were made of 2" thick drywall.


Now Howard, LGM referred to "hardened steel support structures". Why is it you rebutt with attempting to turn his comment of the core structure into a comment of drywall? He did not, clearly, say "walls" - he said "structure".

Surely, if a lowly construction worker understood his comment, you did - or was that a wasted attempted to divert?

Ugh

Misfit


Thank you Misfit!

HR look at the pictures you have posted. They cleary show what I am talking about. There are holes like I said, punched through from the parts of the aircraft, like the engines and landing gear. You also show proof in those pictures of how uneven the heating was from those fires. Clearly there is not fire 360 degrees throughout that building. Molten aluminum is not malible steel. We always get some molten aluminum in house fires etc. if it is in a hotspot it will get melted.

My point is that those floors that are on fire are not one big hotspot. It has some areas that are cool enough to support human life, therefore it cannot have collapsed the way it did. It will fall within the laws of inertia, if it was to fall from heat failure it will bias towards the entry point and or the points where the fire is the hottest. This is how inertia works.

[edit on 10-8-2005 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
There is one thing that forgot to realize about the stairwells in Tower 2. That is A and B Stairwells were wiped out when the plane struck the building,but due to the angle of the hit, Stairwell C was left virtually undamaged by debris of fuel. If you look at the angle of approach on video, the plane impacted the Northwest corner of the south tower. When this occured, Stariwells A and B were obliterated, but Stairwell C was undamaged. I want to add something here, out of 25,000 people that were in both towers on 9-11, 23,000+ made it home.

[edit on 08/07/2005 by gimmefootball400]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Geez, every time I come back to this thread to catch up, Howard is still pulling out the same rubbish that's been debunked before in the thread. I guess he's hoping that if he repeats something often enough, it will become the truth. I see he's dropped the two-word "prove it" method of rebuttal, however. Shows that everyone's doing a great job and that just won't cut it any more.
I think I'll give the "Prove It" thing a test drive though, and see what the ride's like.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Okay. Let's start at the beginning.

Yes, you always do, even when your nonsense has been debunked time and time again.


The impact of the aircraft physically severed ... a few columns opposite the impact point. For WTC 1, this was past the core area on the opposite side of the building.

"A few columns"? So what?? Prove that it was enough to cause a collapse.


We can't know the exact extent of the damage, but we can make reasonable guesses.

We don't want your "guesses", Howie. Prove it! And computer-game simulations with a pre-fixed conclusion don't mean jack.


Common sense tells us that there were three major damage categories

Common sense? You threw common sense out the window with your theory that a few fires collapsed three steel buildings.


C) The column received minimal physical damage, but the fireproofing was knocked of by the shock of the impact and force of the building and aircraft debris.

Minimal damage, and yet the fireproofing was all knocked off? Prove it!


If you sever or significantly damage a column, then it can no longer carry the building loads it was designed to carry. Since these loads do not go away, the adjacent columns now have to carry the weight formerly carried by the damaged columns.

The core had a 600% redundancy. Prove that 5/6 of the core columns were severed.


Other columns with less physical damage would of had the fireproofing scoured off by the impact forces.

By a significant amount?? 5/6ths of the columns? Prove it!


Columns closest to the impact area would have been exposed to the heart of the fuel and building debris fed fires.

Temperature and heat are not the same thing, Howie, and bsbray11 has debunked you on this one time and time again. Steel reaching temperatures hot enough to melt/bend steel for any significant time period? Prove it!


As these columns heated up, they would have gradually lost their ability to support the loads they were designed to support, and the additional loads transfered to them by the significantly damaged, nearby columns.

5/6ths of the columns?? Prove it! They all failed simultaneously?? Prove it!


In addition to the damage to the columns, there was extensive damage to the floor slabs in the impact areas.

The floor slabs don't hold the building up. You know this, right?


The impact damage, and the fires caused the floor slabs to sag, thus the forces that the floor slabs were exerting against the exterior and core columns changed from vertical compression forces to inward tension forces.

Enough to cause simultaneous collapse?? Prove it!


The change in the forces caused the exterior columns to bow inward significantly.

"Significantly"? Prove it!


The bowing pulled the whole side of the building inward up to 10 inches.

Oooooh! A whole 10 inches?! Oh no! That means my shabby old apartment building is about to go in to global collapse. I better get out of here!!...I'm back, it's still standing. BTW, if the building started to "sag" in one direction, if it collapsed under gravity it would continue in that direction and topple over. You say it would all collapse simultaneously and straight down? Prove it!


This inward bowing further reduced the loads the columns were able to carry.

See above


the gradual accumulation of changes to the loading of the columns caused them to fail one by one until a runaway collapse started. In other words, the remaining, undamaged columns were no longer able to support the building.

Wave your hands and say the magic words, "runaway collapse" and suddenly the core columns disappear, and all the rubbish above ties together to make a pile of pick-up sticks and dust, eh? Sorry, but your magic trick didn't work. Despite 600% redundancy (do you even know what that means?) all those undamaged core columns and all those undamaged exterior columns were no longer able to support the building?? Prove it!


in both cases, the tops of the buildings rotated slightly toward the damaged areas at the start of the collapse. once the building started downward, however, gravity took over.

Again with the waving of hands. What do you mean, "gravity took over"? Gravity took over, stopped itself from working the way it does everywhere else in the universe, and caused sections that were falling sideways to stop, move back and then fall straight down? Look up gravity, parabolic trajectory, inertia, understand how they relate, and then come back and try your magic trick again. Then go back again and add up all the potential energy on the towers to see if it's enough to cause a complete collapse, snapping of all the steel beams into 12 foot sections, and pulverization of the concrete. It's not, but I'm sure the journey itself will be educational for you.


At some point the undamaged areas became unable to support the load that they were designed to support as well as the loads transfered to it from the damaged areas.

The same repetitive conjecture about the poor, helpless core columns. Proooooooove it!!


Steel is not that strong.

WTF!???? Says you. And steel structures are even stronger.


These buildings were huge. there is no way that they would have toppled like trees. the structure would not have withstood such a sideways movement.

Rubbish. The laws of inertia are universal. They apply to planets and galaxies just as much as they apply to butterflies. The laws of inertia don't apply to buildings?? PROVE IT!!


There is a big hole in the middle of the south face of the building [WTC1].


Where??


Molten aluminum pouring off of the impact floors


All I see are sparks, and the intensity on the image has been doctored by NIST's own admission. NIST never mentioned "molten aluminium". This is the only piece of information you have come out with all by your little self that isn't parroting the NIST report, and it's complete tripe!!
bsbray11 has debunked you on this before as well. You completely made this up. Molten aluminium? Proooooove it!!


Is that white hot enough for you?

White hot??!? Where?? That's thousands of degrees F you're talking about! Prove it!!


Nuff said

Is that your closing argument? Johnnie Cochran stand aside!!


Nuff said? Sorry...not by a long shot.

...

Wow. That was easy, and fun! The "prove it" thing really DOES work, especially when debunking ridiculous government cover-ups. That took me, like, 30 seconds. Thanks, Howard, for showing me the way.


Anyways, I'm off on vacation to Beijing. I'll be back in a week to read Howie's proofs. In the meantime, have fun debunking the lies everyone, and watch Howie's repeating things that have been debunked before. He's a sneaky little rabbit.


[edit on 2005-8-10 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
wecomeinpeace enjoy your holiday, and another good post by the way,
oh yea bring us back some Chinese food



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   


Anyways, I'm off on vacation to Beijing. I'll be back in a week to read Howie's proofs. In the meantime, have fun debunking the lies everyone, and watch Howie's repeating things that have been debunked before. He's a sneaky little rabbit.


Have fun in Beijing! All work and no fun... Gives me a headache!

Howard please tell me why you are on ATS? You have posted and read so much, and to keep using the same spin on everything is kind of suspisious. If you really are seeking the truth you would not be doing this. There are to many things that have happened on 911 to hold water.

Just one small example: Highjackers take off from different airports and fly all over the eastern seaboard, with minimal training and navigate back and hit three buildings with total precision. All this in the high tech enviroment of the 757-200. This is no easy aircraft to figure out, the navigation alone is a nightmare let alone from one of the guys that flunked out on a cessna landing.

That aircraft does not like to be put on the deck and maintain a 500 knot airspeed. It is very hard to lose the altitude and keep you high airspeed at the same time. It has a nasty tendacy to overspeed its design limits when you drop the nose. It would take one heck of a pilot to do just this simple task, let alone find the building you are targeting. This is something the general public does not realize or think about. Now once you have found the NYC skyline you have to keep the proper heading, high airspeed, low altitude and find the target by site through a rather small outlook on the world through that crafts windshield.

I could go on and on about this subject alone, this aircraft is very hard to fly like this. It is not made for it and will fight you every step of the way. This aircraft when you bank it because of its wieght will want to slip and lose altitude if you try any knid of hard manuever. It a hog that is made for bussing people from one destination to another. It needs an extremly long glide slope to lose its altitude and becomes a handful at low altitude at high speed.

If someone were not planning on swapping out aircraft or something of that nature, they would have gone a much more simple route and taken off from NYC and not have to deal with the long navigation, and losing the cruise altitude. Ir would have been simple and not much chance of problems getting in the way.

Just a little piece of the pie.




top topics



 
4
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join