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.

 

Chemistry/Physics Behind the Attacks

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I don't know which ones are correct. I took the core column layout from the NIST figure 2-12 "Core column layout in WTC towers". There are columns in different places than what they show in the floor framing plan drawing, so which one is correct, I have no idea. Again, why the misleading drawings? What is true and what is false info?


'arthur' at physorg surmises this is to show the orientation of the h and i beams, as this is relevent to stress analysis.
i still think that should be clearly shown in a legend, if that's the case.




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Here are the two drawings in question. Notice how some of the columns are not oriented the same way. The pages in question are pages 27 and 28 of the NIST documents. Don't go by the x of 280 in Adobe....go by the NIST page numbers.

wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
What does "many people here" prove exactly?

I wasn't aware that science was dictated by democracy, or what people feel about things.

There are plenty of engineers who think that 13-20 floors would be more than enough to bring down the towers.

If your going to discard their opinion, then I guess we can safely discard the opinions of "many people here" as well.


Oh, LeftBehind, my deepest apologies for that petty remark that you picked out!

It still does not make sense. Two aspects of it alone show it does not make sense: most weight was lost off the sides, and yet the collapse continued at the same speed. Throw in a third variable: the columns were thickening on the way down. I don't need for that to be popular for it to show that the official story is lacking and needs to be revised.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Max Demian
That the buildings were actually rated to survive the impact of such aircraft, and have collapsed not the less, does even more so.


Sorry to point out that these buildings were not designed to survive the impact of the type of aircraft that hit them. The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707, which was the largest commercial plane at the time the towers were planned.

I have another question... hypothetical I suppose, but I am interested to hear people's opinions on this:

If the towers were brought down with explosives by "someone" (fill in the "someone" with your favorite theory: Al Queda, Bin Laden, George Bush, CIA, whoever), then why crash the planes into the buildings at all? Why not just bring down the towers with the explosives and then crash the planes into other buildings for maximum simultaneous destruction?

When has "someone" ever gone through the trouble to try and cover-up who really planted explosives in bombings? Why would they care? If it was someone in the US government they would just frame Al Queda. If it was Al-Queda they would rub our noses in the fact that they were able to conduct such a HUGE operation as it would have taken to penetrate the building security to get the explosives installed.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Here are the two drawings in question. Notice how some of the columns are not oriented the same way. The pages in question are pages 27 and 28 of the NIST documents. Don't go by the x of 280 in Adobe....go by the NIST page numbers.

wtc.nist.gov...







okay, i see on pg. 27(pg. 89 in the pdf), that the box columns are shown as box columns, but on pg. 28(pdf, pg, # 90 on the pdf), which is supposed to represent the higher floors, the box columns have been replaced with h-beams. seems shoddy and unclear at best, deceptive at worst.



[edit on 8-3-2006 by billybob]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   
A number of the core area box columns transitioned to I-beams at various points from the 75th floor upward. There is a diagram that indicates what floors this occurs for each column.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
A number of the core area box columns transitioned to I-beams at various points from the 75th floor upward. There is a diagram that indicates what floors this occurs for each column.


Yes, figure 2-12. But, as we see, there are 2 box columns that transitioned on the 95th floor. So, when we get to figure 2-13 (floor framing plan of 95th floor) they don't have to show box columns. Nice how they got around that by using the 95th floor for the typical floor framing plan while using the 84th floor for the core column layout. NIST ....National Institute for Shoddy Tactics.


edit: to include framing in the floor framing plan.

[edit on 8-3-2006 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by HowardRoark
A number of the core area box columns transitioned to I-beams at various points from the 75th floor upward. There is a diagram that indicates what floors this occurs for each column.


Yes, figure 2-12. But, as we see, there are 2 box columns that transitioned on the 95th floor. So, when we get to figure 2-13 (floor plan of 95th floor) they don't have to show box columns. Nice how they got around that by using the 95th floor for the typical floor plan while using the 84th floor for the core column layout. NIST ....National Institute for Shoddy Tactics.


i coined the term arsoNIST for easy reference to their body of woolovertheeyes-pulling work.

arsoNIST:


billybob:



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by HowardRoark
A number of the core area box columns transitioned to I-beams at various points from the 75th floor upward. There is a diagram that indicates what floors this occurs for each column.


Yes, figure 2-12. But, as we see, there are 2 box columns that transitioned on the 95th floor. So, when we get to figure 2-13 (floor plan of 95th floor) they don't have to show box columns. Nice how they got around that by using the 95th floor for the typical floor plan while using the 84th floor for the core column layout. NIST ....National Institute for Shoddy Tactics.


Figure 2-13 is a typical "floor framing plan."

Actually floor framing plans don't usually indicate that degree of details about the strucutral member. They generally only show the direction and locations of the beams. Specific details are put in the framing schedule.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Yes, you're right Howard. But, NIST isn't trying to give use construction drawings. In construction drawings, the structural members are in the structural schedule.

But, I digress, where are you getting any detail about the structural framing? All I see are lines. Nothing saying what these lines represent or anything of the like. It would also help to have an accurate drawing of the trusses. Don't link me to NIST because their truss drawings don't show squat.

Oh, and I'll change my post to reflect that it is the framing plan and not just plan.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
Sorry to point out that these buildings were not designed to survive the impact of the type of aircraft that hit them. The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707, which was the largest commercial plane at the time the towers were planned.


The 707's thrust more than compensates for its lighter weight when it comes to the impacting forces of the two jetliners.


From the Boeing web-site, we have that:

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.

Also, since the Boeing 707 would have started from a faster cruise speed, it would be traveling faster in a dive. So in all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.

And in conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.


Source. I'm trusting that these calculations are correct. If anyone can show otherwise then feel free.


If the towers were brought down with explosives by "someone" (fill in the "someone" with your favorite theory: Al Queda, Bin Laden, George Bush, CIA, whoever), then why crash the planes into the buildings at all? Why not just bring down the towers with the explosives and then crash the planes into other buildings for maximum simultaneous destruction?


A) The events were psychological in nature and used to justify the start of a new series of wars for America. Flying planes into the buildings gave the media a heads-up to come focus their cameras on the towers for the big show, so the footage could be shown from this angle and that for the next few months as troops roll into Afghanistan, and later Iraq.

B) Stating publically that the buildings were blown up with explosives would raise a lot of questions, especially considering that the security team leading up to 9/11 had connections directly to the Bush family, and loading up the buildings with explosives in the first place would be extremely difficult to do unless you did it in broad daylight, so-to-speak, with some authority/clearance/etc. behind you. The types of explosives used, if discovered, would probably also point to a source other than al Qaeda. No buildings of this size have ever been blown up, mostly for safety reasons but probably for practicality reasons as well. It would take insane amounts of conventional charges to get those jobs done. What was actually performed would be best kept under wraps if al Qaeda was to be blamed.


When has "someone" ever gone through the trouble to try and cover-up who really planted explosives in bombings?


Don't you answer your own question here?:


If it was someone in the US government they would just frame Al Queda. If it was Al-Queda they would rub our noses in the fact that they were able to conduct such a HUGE operation as it would have taken to penetrate the building security to get the explosives installed.


Emphasis mine. And al Qaeda never rubbed our noses in it, or even admitted to the attacks.

[edit on 8-3-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And al Qaeda never rubbed our noses in it, or even admitted to the attacks.


Actually yes, thats exactly what they did.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 8-3-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by bsbray11
And al Qaeda never rubbed our noses in it, or even admitted to the attacks.


Actually yes, thats exactly what they did.

en.wikipedia.org...


Being discussed here.

Fraud. Cheekbone differences, among other differences, between that guy and known photos of Osama. Fatty has higher cheekbones.



I'll make the same challenge here: post any two pics and I'll tell you which are fatty and which are Osama. You'll probably call foul but there you go nonetheless. Have at it. Bones don't shift position with weight unless you have some sort of disease.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Bones do shift position when you use different angles and compare them like that. Why don't you find two pictures taken from the same angle?

Why the deceit?



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Bones do shift position when you use different angles and compare them like that. Why don't you find two pictures taken from the same angle?

Why the deceit?


Wtf man?



Different angles?

How do you define "angle" exactly? Because I'm seeing two pics from straight in front of the guy's face!

There is no way you can chalk up that cheekbone sinking so far down, and the nose narrowing so much, to angle differences. I mean wtf. You can clearly see very different facial features. Even if you took different angles of the same dude, you would just be seeing different angles of the same features. Those features are just not the same. You're a joke, LB.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Well, the so-called fatty OBL is facing a camera slightly below, the second OBL is looking up slightly. I don't know why you can't see this.

Now let's pretend for a minute that the so-called fatty OBL is a different person. Why is this automatically manufactured by the US government?

OBL could have body double for some videos while he is incapacitated or busy running. The real question is not whether or not that is OBL in the video, but rather if the video came from AL-queda. If it is such an obvious fake as some would have us believe, then why haven't they refuted the videos in later tapes or videos?

Why hasnt AL-jazeera made a big fuss about the tapes being faked? Why hasn't Al-qaeda called us on it?

The only people calling this fake or questioning whether or not the message is from alqaeda are anonymous sites who embrace every possible theory about 9-11, except al-qaeda involvement.

If the message is coming from alqaeda then it really doesnt matter whos in the video.

Unless of course you believe that it's all made up by the CIA anyway and al-jazeera is controlled by the CIA. These kind of theories make it a shorter list for who wasn't in on 9-11, and are so all encompassing as to be ridiculous.

Call foul all you want, but until al-qaeda refutes the videos I think it's safe to say the message is from them.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Well, the so-called fatty OBL is facing a camera slightly below, the second OBL is looking up slightly. I don't know why you can't see this.


I'm sure you realize how stupid this argument is.


Now let's pretend for a minute that the so-called fatty OBL is a different person. Why is this automatically manufactured by the US government?


Fine; I don't care who you think put him out there. Fact remains that Osama himself has never claimed responsibility for 9/11. Mid-Eastern news carried his denial from the start, a position from which he has never changed.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
I don't know why you think that the angles are the same, just look at the rim of his hat in both pictures.

In one it barely curves. In the other the curve bends down quite a bit.

Much like these hats at different angles.







The NFL logo is in different places in both pics, yet it remains the same hat.


It seems that we hear from OBL from time to time, are they all fake? If not why does he not deny the attacks. Why are the only ones calling foul on this anonymous internet sites? You would think that since it's so obvious to some people, Al-jazeera and others would be all over something like this.

But they're not. It could be a different person than OBL in those videos, but that comparison photo is taken at a different angle, so of course his cheek bones are in a different place. Try to find a comparison from the same angle, the way it is now is deceptive.

The messages in the videos also appear to be from al-qaeda, as they have had the time and opportunity to deny them, but have not.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

It seems that we hear from OBL from time to time, are they all fake? If not why does he not deny the attacks.


he did deny the attacks. he said america did it to itself. he just has no need to convince anyone. he's smart enough to know that reality isn't as real as television. he also probably knows, you can't wake a man pretending to be asleep.

first you say it's definitely him, and then you say, 'well it COULD be a double, but the double is saying his words'.

al jazeera is probably just another gatekeeper.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by LeftBehind

It seems that we hear from OBL from time to time, are they all fake? If not why does he not deny the attacks.


he did deny the attacks. he said america did it to itself. he just has no need to convince anyone. he's smart enough to know that reality isn't as real as television. he also probably knows, you can't wake a man pretending to be asleep.


Got a link to where he says this? Sure you haven't twisted him saying that America brought it upon themselves, or that was the general intention of his words? Would be interesting to see this statement within the context of everything else he said.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join