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.

 

Mind Explaining These Things To Me?

page: 15
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Kevin Ryan's Letter

www.septembereleventh.org...

Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

I dont see "water" anywhere. He was a trained chemist, who would know what it would take to melt or bend steel.




posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Just to be sure I understand you two, you're saying that being significantly heavier doesn't matter when the integrity of the steel supports is being compromised by fire?

Beg your pardon but something in that doesn't smell right to me.

Ask yourself this- when a boeing crashes it takes it a lot harder than a mosquito, does it not? The bigger they are, the harder they fall.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Just to be sure I understand you two, you're saying that being significantly heavier doesn't matter when the integrity of the steel supports is being compromised by fire?

Beg your pardon but something in that doesn't smell right to me.

Ask yourself this- when a boeing crashes it takes it a lot harder than a mosquito, does it not? The bigger they are, the harder they fall.


its all to scale, you couldnt put 47 colums in the towers in question. that's all the building would be. i believe he used a bad example, maybe a better example would be..

thats like saying a boeing couldnt fly, because its heavier than a remote controlled airplane.

Both are based on the exact same physics. The same equations used to give a remote controlled airplane flight, are the same used to get a boeing 747 off the ground.

This is the case with buildings. The more weight, the bigger the building, the more structural support you need. I could build a 5' replica of one of the WTC towers made out of small steel beams (5mm maybe? id have to scale it down) but that tower, if exactly modeled, would have the same physics as the tower itself. This would include, weight distribution, beam integrity under pressure, aswell as wind resistance if put in a wind tunnel.

This is how they test buildings before they build them.




[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I'd like to defeat the "government conspiracy" theory once in for all. Bin Laden and his top officials admitted repeatedly on television interviews and tapes that they planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. There is also flight manifests and eye witness accounts of the terrorists getting on the plane. Also, there are video recordings of phone calls and eye witness (more like ear witness) accounts of the victims families which describe middle-aged middle eastern men. We also have audio recordings of the hijackers voices. Also, do you remember the 94 trade center attacks? And Al-Queda's vow to come back to finish the job? All of this evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Al-Queda was responsible and I have yet to see you even touch any part of this. Instead you continue with your demolition theory which somehow, as flimsy as it is, would point to government conspiracy?



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTerminator
I'd like to defeat the "government conspiracy" theory once in for all. Bin Laden and his top officials admitted repeatedly on television interviews and tapes that they planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. There is also flight manifests and eye witness accounts of the terrorists getting on the plane. Also, there are video recordings of phone calls and eye witness (more like ear witness) accounts of the victims families which describe middle-aged middle eastern men. We also have audio recordings of the hijackers voices. Also, do you remember the 94 trade center attacks? And Al-Queda's vow to come back to finish the job? All of this evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Al-Queda was responsible and I have yet to see you even touch any part of this. Instead you continue with your demolition theory which somehow, as flimsy as it is, would point to government conspiracy?



and on 9-28-01 he claimed that killing innocent people was against islamic law. go look at the video tape of bin laden, and compare it to other images of bin laden.

In the video he is seen wearing a gold ring, a watch, and writing with his right hand. The cia website states that he is lefthanded (as are most non-americans). Wearing jewelry is forbidden by islamic law.

Flight manifests do not mention the terrorists. 7 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers are still alive.

The 93' bombings are also claimed to have been inside jobs.

www.washingtonpost.com...

I just uploaded a 3 part series on "neo-cons" and the origin of "Alciada" written and direct by BBC. You can watch it by following the links below. This series of shows seems to refute everything we've ever been told about alqaeda.

senseless.homelinux.com...
senseless.homelinux.com...
senseless.homelinux.com...



[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]

[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Yeah, Howard, and that's going to bring a skyscraper down.


For the less educated of you, skyscrapers are built over-engineered, meaning the columns are designed to support much more than their own weight. Further, when columns lose the ability to support their portion of the weight, the load is redistributed to the other local columns.

If each and every column on the impacted floors lost even half of its strength, the building would've still stood just fine, or possibly there would've been a small local collapse as was seen in the skyscraper fire in Madrid. This is because of the over-engineering and weight redistribution features present in the WTC, as well as every single skyscraper ever built with any amount of brains behind it at all.

The columns would've likely had to lose somewhere around 80-90% of their strength to just give out like they did, and they would've also had to have given out at the exact same time for the collapse to be so vertical. The temperatures required for this sort of failure were not met at the WTC on 9/11, let alone by every single freaking column on those floors.

It's not surprising that you would make such misleading implications, Howard. A few more trips around the merry-go-round and I should be able to accurately predict your every move.


[edit on 28-8-2005 by bsbray11]



What you are refering to is called the "demand capacity ratio."

Do you know what that was for the WTC towers? do you know what that is for any skiyscraper?

Gues what, it is a hell of a lot closser to 1.00 than you realize.


Add to that the lost support from the columns directly damaged by the impact. . . .



[edit on 28-8-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by senseless04
New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic “spikes” at the beginning of each collapse.




No not really





Seismic Spikes
CLAIM: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.


Click for image of the collapse data
www.popularmechanics.com...



[edit on 28-8-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by senseless04

the explosion again was 90 stories (1080feet) away... how was the explosion so big that it picked up and "blew away" a 100,000lb press. Roughly 1/3 the weight of a 747.


I know that this has been discussed a number of times already, you know that he is talking about the capacity of the press, not its actual weight, so why do you persists in this garbage?



[edit on 28-8-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What you are refering to is called the "demand capacity ratio."

Do you know what that was for the WTC towers? do you know what that is for any skiyscraper?

Gues what, it is a hell of a lot closser to 1.00 than you realize.


Add to that the lost support from the columns directly damaged by the impact. . . .


www.nist.gov...

He noted that the original design wind loads on the towers exceeded those established by the New York City Building Code. On September 11, 2001, the towers were subjected to in-service live loads, which are considered to be approximately 25 percent of the design live loads. The wind loads were minimal on that day, thus allowing significantly more reserve capacity for the exterior walls. The safety of the WTC towers was most likely not affected by the fraction of members for which the demand exceeded capacity under the original design wind load conditions.

Dr. Sadek then described the aircraft impact analysis and how NIST determined the extent of the damage to support columns, floors, and fireproofing, and the distribution of aircraft debris and fuel. He compared the NIST analysis with that performed by MIT and Weidlinger, noting that the NIST results compared well with the MIT analysis, but not as well with the Weidlinger analysis, which over predicted aircraft damage to the towers. A stability analysis by Weidlinger showed that the building, with their estimated damage, would have collapsed immediately after aircraft impact.

Dr. Sadek stated that the Demand/Capacity ratios estimated from the original design case are, in general, close to those obtained from a lower bound state-of-the-practice case. For both loading cases, a small fraction of structural components had Demand/Capacity ratios larger than 1.0; the safety of the WTC towers was most likely not affected by this.

Q: How is capacity defined? [referring to the Demand/Capacity ratios for the structural component estimates].
A: Capacity is defined by using the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Allowable Stress Design procedure.

....

another excerpt from nist.gov

It was concluded that the fires in WTC 1, which could generally be characterized as oxygen-limited or ventilation-controlled, were less sensitive to changes in the fuel and combustible loadings, compared to the fires in WTC 2, which could be characterized as fuel-limited or fuel-controlled.


heres a whole debunking site just for popular mechanics..

www.serendipity.li...

still reading over it to see what he says, seems intresting.





[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]

[edit on 28-8-2005 by senseless04]



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

www.popularmechanics.com...




www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

theres the actual columbia.edu link to their actual data gathered, look at which graph they're using. Hm, must be a conspiracy theory against bush.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Do you know what that was for the WTC towers? do you know what that is for any skiyscraper?


No, and I seriously doubt you do either, seeing as how the blueprints and other critical information are not available to the public. (I'm talking about the WTC here, btw)


Gues what, it is a hell of a lot closser to 1.00 than you realize.


I respect your opinion, but I'm afraid I don't agree with it.



Add to that the lost support from the columns directly damaged by the impact. . . .


Ie, 10-15% of the perimeter columns of either tower.

There is no data on the core columns, but I seriously doubt that any majority of the core columns from either building were damaged. I know you would probably like to suggest otherwise, but unfortunately there's no data to rely on, which is just the sad truth.

Btw, thanks for your last post, Senseless.


[edit on 28-8-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Add to that the lost support from the columns directly damaged by the impact. . . .
[edit on 28-8-2005 by HowardRoark]



Yep, all 5 of them (give and take).
That still leaves over 40 support columns. And you want us to believe 5 missing colums is going to bring a tower down ?



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Add to that the lost support from the columns directly damaged by the impact. . . .
[edit on 28-8-2005 by HowardRoark]



Yep, all 5 of them (give and take).
That still leaves over 40 support columns. And you want us to believe 5 missing colums is going to bring a tower down ?


These multiple threads discussing the same thing are getting rather annoying


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
These multiple threads discussing the same thing are getting rather annoying


It would be alot easier if it got through to you from the first time.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by HowardRoark
These multiple threads discussing the same thing are getting rather annoying


It would be alot easier if it got through to you from the first time.





You are the one who is obstinate in your willfull ignorance.

:p :p :p :p :p



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
That is highly relative and merely a point of view, Howard.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
These multiple threads discussing the same thing are getting rather annoying


Just trying to make our job harder Howard...
Dog is yellow....




posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
These multiple threads discussing the same thing are getting rather annoying

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I agree, and this "Mind Explaining Things to ME ME ME?" thread is just a troll thread or a points farm.

But it's amusing how you linked to the Progressive Collapse Challenge thread which was derailed BY YOU into arguing the collapses all over again and dragging your WTC Challenge voodoo over into it by the truckload, rather than addressing the challenge and the initial intent of the thread itself. You lead threads down the garden path, and then you blame us because you're lost? Pffft...gimme a break.


[edit on 2005-8-29 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   

and on 9-28-01 he claimed that killing innocent people was against islamic law. go look at the video tape of bin laden, and compare it to other images of bin laden.

In the video he is seen wearing a gold ring, a watch, and writing with his right hand. The cia website states that he is lefthanded (as are most non-americans). Wearing jewelry is forbidden by islamic law.


Not that video, the more recent one that is obviously Bin Laden in which he directly states that he masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Also, you are forgetting that we have captured bin Laden's right hand man who directly claims responsibility also.

I have no idea where you get that thing about bin Laden saying killing civilians is against islamic law. That is bullcrap. Have you ever seen the footage from the interview where Osama directly states "we do not distinguish between men in uniform and those who are not."


Flight manifests do not mention the terrorists. 7 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers are still alive.


More bullcrap. The only report I have seen from a respectable website was written right after 9/11 and stated that four of the original alledged hijackers identities were called into question. Absotuley not that seven of the hijackers are alive and well. What is your source?



The 93' bombings are also claimed to have been inside jobs.


That is absurd!! We have arrested the man who mastermind the original attacks and he has repeatedly claimed responsibiltiy and before 9/11 said that the job would be finished "some day." Sometimes you guys have just gone too far.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
DaTerminator you need to get with the picture dude, your constant questioning of generally accepted stories and known facts leads us to believe you live a lonely life in some very remote place. This is not an insult but mere concern.




top topics



 
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join