Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What about the WTC 1 Spire?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





If it had collapsed from fire you would not be able to see the outer walls.


What kind of collapse would leave NONE of the outer walls visible on top of the pile, ANOK?

Perhaps, fire driven collapse would have caused the building to peel it's outer skin like a banana, leaving the exterior walls crumpled face down on the street, and then the inside of the building falls down on top of it, in a neat two step process?

I think that's not a known characteristic of any type of collapse.
edit on 12/9/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: clarification




posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
What kind of collapse would leave NONE of the outer walls visible on top of the pile, ANOK?

Perhaps, fire driven collapse would have caused the building to peel it's outer skin like a banana, leaving the exterior walls crumpled face down on the street, and then the inside of the building falls down on top of it, in a neat two step process?

I think that's not a known characteristic of any type of collapse.


No. You're just guessing.

A natural collapse would push the walls outwards, and they would end up underneath the rubble. Maybe if the building fell to one side you could get one outer wall to fall on top, but when you can see all four walls...

The whole idea of an implosion demolition is to drop the insides of the building, so as to allow the outer walls to fall inwards, and fold in on top of the rest of the rubble. That is how they get the majority of the building to land in its own footprint. Without that the walls would be simply pushed outwards and covered by rubble.

The outer walls, facade, were not load bearing, they were just granite hung on the steel frame. There is a similar building near where I live that just changed hands. The new owners had the facade completely removed, leaving the open steel frame. Obviously they are replacing it.

edit on 12/9/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


But what if the fire-induced damage causes the same structural members that would be cut by demolitions to fail, causing a similar looking collapse? Has THAT ever crossed your mind ANOK?



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


No. You're just guessing.

A natural collapse would push the walls outwards, and they would end up underneath the rubble.


You mean like the WTC Towers and how their walls were pushed out?



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by purplemer
 

If you are a Judy Wood fan you might want to watch her in those YT videos.
She comes across as certifiable. IMO



No I am not a Judy Wood fan. I linked to her web site because she mentions the Hutchingsons effect and 911. It is the only way to explain the collapse of the buildings and all the strange effects. Like cars a way off from the building catching on fire and having damaged metal or the collapsing spire on the tower that turns to dust. Most of those building went into the air they did not land on the ground. This is not correct for a building collapse.


There are anomalies surrounding the collapses of all three towers, but the 'disintegrating' spire is not a part of them, it didn't disintegrate, the last part of it collapsed straight down, leaving a momentary dusty residue where it had been.

edit on 10-12-2012 by smurfy because: Link.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


So how do you think that is mechanical force. Would you like to explain to me why thousands Architects & Engineers disagree and say this cannot happen by mechanical force and please give me your credentials of expertise.


I have yet to see a single one of the "thousands of architects and engineers" address how this structural component wound up in the condition its in, and it's no mystery why that is. Richard Gage is promoting a phony premise for profit, and is intentionally withholding evidence like this from these "thousands of architects and engineers" to prevent them from coming to any conclusion other than the one he wants them to come to. It's the same reason why Gage snips off the collapse of the penthouse from all his video to prevent people from concluding the collapse wasn't as symmetrical as he's claiming.

So, if you can show how I am wrong and Gage actually does discuss how the condition of this steel gives credibility to his controlled demolitions theory, please do. Otherwise, your protest only serves to prove my claim and only refutes yours.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut

First I would like to say ty for debating this with me. If you can show that steel I can be convinced. But can you?

Now for your pic. It clearly show the exterior facade on top of the steel. How could this be?


You'll excuse me if I don't scour the internet searching through five thousand photos and videos in order to prove or disprove your point because that would be your responsibility, not mine, so I will simply post a video I archived from another post to illustrate. Zoom ahead to 1.34 to see the beginning of the collapse, and you'll see the reason why a portion of the facade wound up on top- the upper section didn't fall straignt down, but at an angle, so the section of facade you're seeing on the ground is part of the facade on the side of the building facing up.



You'll also excuse me when I say that this whole "where did the steel go" thread sounds like you're simply making allusions to impropriety rather than discuss any actual point. May I ask why?
edit on 10-12-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Well I see you and Dave have a past lol. The truth is 90% of the time i dont look at who is writing something. I try to merit each post individually. I can only name 3 member right off the top of my head lol four with Dave.


Actually I have no idea who that guy was.


Now i wont even say it was an "inside job" . Once you get past the unsettling notion that black tech was in operation the questions become much more complex.


...but what concerns me is that if you're of the notion that "unexplainable and unknown black tech" was involved you will start seeing "unexplainable and unknown black tech" in everything. It isn't because it's really there. It's because you want to see it's there.

It's akin to all those people who see the image of Jesus on everything from grilled cheese sandwiches to rust spots on old refrigerators. The people who always spot such things are always the uber christians, so Jesus is the first image they're naturally going to perceive as they attempt to form a pattern out of otherwise random imagery (rathwr than, say, Jerry Garcia). This makes it more of a Rorschach test than anything else.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


So how do you think that is mechanical force. Would you like to explain to me why thousands Architects & Engineers disagree and say this cannot happen by mechanical force and please give me your credentials of expertise.


Just a friendly math reminder:
1758 does not equal "thousands". It just means one thousand seven hundred and fifty eight people fell for it. There are no thousands.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Just a friendly math reminder:
1758 does not equal "thousands". It just means one thousand seven hundred and fifty eight people fell for it. There are no thousands.


Good call Radek. I woukd still like to see if any of this thousand (as in just the singular thousand) discuss how controlled demeolitions caused the condition of this support column. From what I've seen, not only does that con artist Gage religiously refuse to let people know of evidence like this exists, all he does is come up with new and interesting ways of saying the exact same old thing over and over.

Seriously now, what new and magical properties does Ed Asner contribute to the mix that makes "Building what?" fresh material somehow?



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

But what if the fire-induced damage causes the same structural members that would be cut by demolitions to fail, causing a similar looking collapse? Has THAT ever crossed your mind ANOK?


Lol no. As I explained it is imposable. If it was possible then controlled implosion demolitions would not be necessary. But of course they're necessary because it's the only way to get a building to act contrary to nature.

After all these years of debating you still act completely ignorant as to the physics of collapses? Haven't you learned anything in all these years?



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
A natural collapse would push the walls outwards, and they would end up underneath the rubble.


You mean like the WTC Towers and how their walls were pushed out?

No not quite. The outer walls of the towers were more than just pushed out by the collapsing floors.

Nice try but, no.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   


Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
A natural collapse would push the walls outwards, and they would end up underneath the rubble.


You mean like the WTC Towers and how their walls were pushed out?


No not quite. The outer walls of the towers were more than just pushed out by the collapsing floors.

Nice try but, no.


Wow ANOK, way to stack the deck in your favor! No matter what the question, the answer must be 2!

If you have to resort to this sort of nonsense to try and keep your argument afloat, then it must be a pretty weak argument to begin with. Now, either (as you claim) in a "natural" collapse the walls will be pushed out, or it isnt. WTC1 and 2 had theirs pushed out. Ergo, according to your own words, WTC 1&2 were "natural" non-demolition collapses. Why are you now spinning from away from this? Either it is or it isnt! You said WTC7 is a demo because its outer walls are on top of the pile and that doesnt happen in a "natural" collapse without demolition charges. WTC1&2 had their walls pushed out. Now you say those weren't "natural" collapses either because they had their walls pushed out. Pick one ANOK.

Seems to me that you are just pulling nonsense out of your backside and trying to pass it off as facts. I would like to see a technical manual that states what you are claiming.

edit on 12/10/2012 by GenRadek because: quotes



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek

But what if the fire-induced damage causes the same structural members that would be cut by demolitions to fail, causing a similar looking collapse? Has THAT ever crossed your mind ANOK?


Lol no. As I explained it is imposable. If it was possible then controlled implosion demolitions would not be necessary. But of course they're necessary because it's the only way to get a building to act contrary to nature.

After all these years of debating you still act completely ignorant as to the physics of collapses? Haven't you learned anything in all these years?




Really? I'm not the one who still has trouble understanding what is meant by Newton's 3rd Law.

How exactly is it impossible ANOK, for certain structural members to fail from fire alone?



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Really? I'm not the one who still has trouble understanding what is meant by Newton's 3rd Law.

How exactly is it impossible ANOK, for certain structural members to fail from fire alone?


I have trouble understanding Newtons third law?

OK then why don't you explain it, and then we'll discus who knows Newtons 3rd law.

Be aware that PLB took on the same challenge and failed miserably.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 12/10/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Hows about the fact that "equal and opposite" is directly in reference to the forces involved (ie you push on a chair, and the chair pushes back on you with the same magnitude in the opposite direction), and it has NOTHING to do with what happens physically to the differing objects during collision? You use that incorrectly every time when trying to .



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
Really? I'm not the one who still has trouble understanding what is meant by Newton's 3rd Law.

How exactly is it impossible ANOK, for certain structural members to fail from fire alone?


I have trouble understanding Newtons third law?

OK then why don't you explain it, and then we'll discus who knows Newtons 3rd law.

Be aware that PLB took on the same challenge and failed miserably.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 12/10/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


I would say it its a mission impossible to explain physics to you, so I am not really ashamed that I failed miserably. Did you read the nasa link I gave you yet? Did they succeed or also failed miserably? I fear its the latter.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
On the 13 meg etc photo.

Look at the debris. Its so sparse that you can see through it. No real sign of any box braces . And for there to be no box braces all welds would have fail at the same time . remember these four box columns alone held the four cranes that built the towers so those welds wernt halfassed

That's say 40 stories of box braces x 4 corners x 2 buildings. And none if any of those survived? Look at that 13 meg pic. There is a circle around the core that is devoid of almost any steel columns.

O and i found a quote about wtc7 that talks about them measuring the lean if the building. Buildings that lean dont fall straight down.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
On the 13 meg etc photo.

remember these four box columns alone held the four cranes that built the towers so those welds wernt halfassed



The Crane Towers were not a permanent part of the building structure. They were removed after construction was complete. Thus we shouldn't expect to see any remains.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by Another_Nut
On the 13 meg etc photo.

remember these four box columns alone held the four cranes that built the towers so those welds wernt halfassed



The Crane Towers were not a permanent part of the building structure. They were removed after construction was complete. Thus we shouldn't expect to see any remains.


So your explanation of how all welds failed on all four box columns .box columns that held up the cranes that built the towers but sheered off at the base on 9/11 because of gravity is....

The cranes arnt still there.

huh?





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join