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.

 

"Screw Loose Change" video

page: 16
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   
regarding cell phones....if so many people from United 93 made cell phone calls, why wasn't this behavior repeated by others on the other flights. The "hero" flight was the only one and it had so many. You'd think any plane getting hijacked would have passengers reaching for their cells. Maybe a mute point, but i haven't heard it argued yet.

Also regarding the comment that cell phones work best around populated areas....shanksville pennsylvania is as unpopulated as they come, as opposed to , i dunno, New York....where i've yet to hear of reported cell phone calls. I may be wrong, just haven't found anything regarding this yet....please prove me wrong.

BTW, screw loose change is weaker than a bad argument on a bad day at ATS.




posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez
regarding cell phones....if so many people from United 93 made cell phone calls, why wasn't this behavior repeated by others on the other flights. The "hero" flight was the only one and it had so many. You'd think any plane getting hijacked would have passengers reaching for their cells. Maybe a mute point, but i haven't heard it argued yet.


Do you have any data showing that there was a significant difference between the number of phone calls made?

You would have to factor in the different number of passengers on each flight and the different lengths of time between the hijackings and the crashes.




Originally posted by Pedro Sanchez
Also regarding the comment that cell phones work best around populated areas....shanksville pennsylvania is as unpopulated as they come, as opposed to , i dunno, New York....where i've yet to hear of reported cell phone calls. I may be wrong, just haven't found anything regarding


Cell towers in populated areas tend to have weaker signals becuase there are more of them. Cell towers in the boonies have stronger signals.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by snoochies
IMHO, there are only 2 types of people who would try and refute the evidence provided by the conspiracy theorists.

1.) The American fascist lemmings blinded by the spoon fed media portrayal of the ACTUAL events of 9/11…
2.) Government DIS-informants trying to prevent exposing the blood thirsty neo-con regime currently in power…AND Fear of them having to REWRITE HISTORY.


So only fascists and "secret agents" would propose counter evidence and arguments against conspiracy theories? Does it matter AT ALL that there are more theories then I can count who all propose different evidence as undisputable?



I CAN'T believe the lid HASN'T been blown off as of yet to expose the REAL TERRORISTS...


Weird isnt that? I wonder whether the quatrillion different conspiracy theorists, each with a different version of the events (complete with unique 'evidence' to back it up ofcourse), yelling and screaming "you are a government agent!" at everyone, save their own reflection in the mirror, is obscuring the truth.


[edit on 30-6-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoochies
..........................

19 hours? The 38 story highrise DIDN'T even WEAKEN!!!!!!!!!!!

Read the rest here....119 pages .pdf format.Phliadelphia, PA Meridian Building Fire


and for some reason you leave out that two of those buildings were hit by passenger airplanes" while the building in Philadelphia wasn't.... you also do not say anything at all about the fall of the two buildings which created strong pressure waves, and the mass of debris which hit wtc 7 which weakened that building too....

To what lengths some people will go to trying to deny the truth....


[edit on 3-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Buddy, the fires were accused of bringing down the towers, not the plane. Technically it was a mix between the two but the tower didn't really cause any structural integrity loss, the fires did, so therefore, the plane argument is very minimal in comparison, rather, the fires are.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Who is claiming that the fires were what caused the collapse?

It sure isn't NIST.


wtc.nist.gov...

Seven major factors led to the collapse of WTC 1:

• Structural damage from the aircraft impact;

• Large amount of jet fuel sprayed into the building interior, that ignited widespread fires over
several floors;

• Dislodging of SFRM from structural members due to the aircraft impact, that enabled rapid
heating of the unprotected structural steel;

• Open paths for fire spread resulting from the open plan of the impact floors and the breaking
of partition walls by the impact debris;

• Weakened core columns that increased the load on the perimeter walls;

• Sagging of the south floors, that led to pull-in forces on the perimeter columns; and

• Bowed south perimeter columns that had a reduced capacity to carry loads.




wtc.nist.gov...

Seven factors led to the collapse of WTC 2:

• Direct structural damage from the aircraft impact, which included more severe damage to the
core columns than in WTC 1;

• Jet fuel sprayed into the building interior, that ignited widespread fires over several floors;

• Dislodging of SFRM from structural members due to the aircraft impact and aircraft and building debris, which enabled rapid heating of the unprotected structural steel;

• Sustained fires on the east side of the tower and an ample air supply;

• Weakened core columns that increased the loads on the perimeter walls; and

• Sagging of the east floors, that led to pull-in forces on the east perimeter columns; and

• Bowed east perimeter columns that had a reduced capacity to carry loads.



For WTC 2, the damage from the plane is more of a factor since it damaged the core much more than in WTC 1. According to NIST anyway.

[edit on 4-7-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Yes but the fires played the major role as it did take out the majority of the structural integrity, bigger than what the aircraft impact had to offer.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Take The ATS 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Survey



A new survey is open to ATS members and guests to help get a "pulse" of what our members and visitors think of conspiracies associated with the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001.

This new survey focuses on the possible levels of the conspiracies to first gauge the overall opinion of the people who visit AboveTopSecret.com. We'll keep the survey open for two weeks, then post the results.

After this general survey, we'll organize follow-ups to focus more on the specific events on and related to 9/11/2001.

The 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Survey: 8 Questions
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Yes but the fires played the major role as it did take out the majority of the structural integrity, bigger than what the aircraft impact had to offer.


Where does it say that? Are you just making things up now?

Read those reasons I just posted.

The plane impact:

Damaged core and perimiterer columns, severing them in some cases.

Knocked the fireproofing off of the trusses and columns.

Sprayed entire floors with jet fuel and started the fire.


Even NIST says that without the plane impacts the fire alone would not have caused the collapse.

Pretending that the role of the planes was minor is misleading.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   
pwned! this guy is awesome he's shoving it in the face of all these crazy conspirocy theorists.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by Masisoar
Yes but the fires played the major role as it did take out the majority of the structural integrity, bigger than what the aircraft impact had to offer.


Where does it say that? Are you just making things up now?



No, he's not actually.

The FEMA Report showed that less than 15% of the perimeter columns were severed in the impacted regions of either tower. There probably would have been similar figures for the core, and I think even NIST computer models showed similar damage.

Remember that this 15% isn't located on any single floor, but over the whole impacted region.

Now NIST also includes information on safety factor ratings of the support columns (5 for the perimeter columns and 2.25 for the core), and the average psf of each floor, etc., so that one can get a good idea of how many columns would have to fail (or something equivalent -- ie all of the remaining columns being heated over 600 C, turns out, or a hell of a lot of buckling that we didn't see or etc.) before a floor would no longer be able to support the loads it was designed for, and fail, taking into account all the over-engineering.

Wayne Trumpman took NIST's figures and wrapped them up here in his paper:


CALCULATION:
60 * 2.25 = 135
40 * 5 = 200
135 + 200 = 335
335 / 100 = 3.35

The perimeter columns essentially had enough reserve capacity to carry 200% of the WTC 1 design load. The core columns could carry 135%. For floor 97 to collapse, the equivalent of 55% of the core columns and 80% of the perimeter columns would have to fail. That means on average 26 core columns and 189 perimeter columns would have to fail. 75% of the total columns would have to fail.


Source, and he builds up to this if you want further info on where the numbers are coming from. The 60 and 40 are from his division of the loads: 60% support from the core, 40% from the perimeter columns. If you adjust this ratio to 50/50, you just bring more redundancy into the picture because of the perimeter columns' greater safety factor rating, so 60/40 is actually giving the official story some room here.


Again, the impacts, as indicated by FEMA, and (theoretically) by some NIST models, etc., the impact damage was pretty minor compared to what the fires would've had to have done.

And I'll wrap up all of the above to make it that much clearer:

If an equivalent of 75% of the support for any given floor had to be lost for that floor to collapse, and the impacts severed roughly 15% of the support columns, that leaves 60% structural failures to the fires -- for a single floor to fail.

Notice that I'm assuming all of that 15% damage from impact was done to a single floor. Again, it wasn't.

The fires would've had to have done 4x the damage to the WTC structure on any given floor than the impacts are known to have based on the conclusions of FEMA and NIST, based on NIST's own WTC figures for safety factor ratings.





Btw, as far as the fireproofing, and this has been nailed countless times: bare, naked steel, devoid of any protection -- and this is FACTUAL -- will hardly lose any strength until its heated to about 400 C. Loses half of it at 600 C, which is about as hot as it will ever get in office fires based on all available research on office fires and steel heating (I linked British Steel tests to you in another thread, and I think those guys actually worked with NIST as well). Not talking about temperatures of the fires themselves, but the steel that they heat.

You know those iron stoves? The ones that you build fires in to cook? Those are the same kinds of fires, too, btw. They burn around the same temperatures, if not hotter from being enclosed with only limited ventilation. Do those stoves ever need fireproofing, to prevent them from glowing red-hot or softening or collapsing or any of that?

[edit on 8-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Wayne Trumpman??

Whos he?

A google search turns up zero credentials for a 'Wayne Trumpman' Are you sure thats his name?

How can it be that the expertise of hundreds of scientists trained in necessary and exacting fields are discounted.........but..WAYNE TRUMPMAN....well 'trumps' them?

What is your criteria for accepting the credentials of a person to be "refiggerin" the calculations of experts?

Two more questions that will go unaddressed no doubt.




You know those iron stoves? The ones that you build fires in to cook? Those are the same kinds of fires, too, btw. They burn around the same temperatures, if not hotter from being enclosed with only limited ventilation. Do those stoves ever need fireproofing, to prevent them from glowing red-hot or softening or collapsing or any of that?


Straw herring.

Do you mean the old CAST IRON stoves..or the steel firebrick lined ones?
Doesn't matter. Its a straw herring.

[edit on 8-7-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Wayne Trumpman took NIST's figures and wrapped them up here in his paper:


CALCULATION:
60 * 2.25 = 135
40 * 5 = 200
135 + 200 = 335
335 / 100 = 3.35

The perimeter columns essentially had enough reserve capacity to carry 200% of the WTC 1 design load. The core columns could carry 135%. For floor 97 to collapse, the equivalent of 55% of the core columns and 80% of the perimeter columns would have to fail. That means on average 26 core columns and 189 perimeter columns would have to fail. 75% of the total columns would have to fail.




So you're going to accept and lead others to believe that this structure sans any other problem such as fire/impact would remain viable with 80% of the perimeter columns removed or 75% of the total as detailed above?

And you have no problem with the math nor the logic in the above assertion?




Originally posted by bsbray11
If an equivalent of 75% of the support for any given floor had to be lost for that floor to collapse, and the impacts severed roughly 15% of the support columns, that leaves 60% structural failures to the fires -- for a single floor to fail.



Column loading was predicated not on a given floors potential load alone rather it was based on deadload + liveload + windload.

Deadload = A particular floors weight + all those above.
Liveload = All objects non-structural, placed on a particular floor and those above.
Windload = Lateral force translated as positve or negative verticle force on column

The NIST report discusses all the various loadings as well as how it relates to column design parameters.

Suffice to say an individual floor load has little to do with column design strength and factoring ultimate load carrying ability. One even has to consider hat trusse transfer into the uppermost floors - so you can't even make an individual calculation relating to columns there either.

The only practicle use of individual floor calculation comes into play when figuring floor truss and connection strength vs loading.

The other fallacy not discussed much is the fact that original engineering calculations are based on all structural elements being intact and working together to more or less distribute overloading across and through the frame equally with the exception being extreme windload which in windtunnel tests ended up being diagonal to the corners with a direct wind hitting 90 degrees to a face. Colume deflection beyond limits defeats the original calculations with unpredictable results. I am not aware of any calculation that directly addresses a substantial quanity of missing columns in and of itself - all airplane impact design criteria seems based upon. If you know of any please post because that would be useful data for us all.

Deflection is of vital importance when considering column loading. As a column or section of columns has load exceed thier limits deflection in turn transfers much of that load to adjacent columns setting up a "domino" effect if you will. NIST says the design if I recollect correctly was .4" at max rating for a considerable time on an individual column.

The NIST and photographic evidence suggest deflections in feet rather than fractions of inchs. Much more deflection exceeding limits in my opinion was un-noticed because 1" to 3" movement would not be discernable in photos of large sections.

Why is this important?

No deflection = no load transfer making some deflection desirable (with-in limits) and needed for integrity - this need and fact for deflection makes any agument against deflection a futile effort because it in of itself is needed to prop up any factual assetation that load transfer occured at all. Without it collapse would have occured immediately.

The question is and remains how much is too much? obviously we can say deflection did in fact exceed design limits causing an uneven distribution of loading that could well have been a major factor in the resulting collapse.

A deflection of columns does not evenly distribute the load amongst all columns.
The adjacent columns act as buttresses do on a bridge until they slightly deflect inturn taking the load to the next set of adjacent columns and so on and so forth until such time deflection has increased on the first set of columns to cause absolute failure.


Phoenix




Bye the bye has anyone carried out this simple experiment demonstrating compression with-out containment?

Spread a fine layer of flour on a flat dry surface. Take a 3'x3' piece of 1/2" plywood with a hole cut in the center representing 15% of it total surface.
Drop the plywood onto the flat dry surface with the layer of flour from a height of a few inchs.

Tell us what you observe.

Once the observation is made translate what you have seen into thermodynamic sound wave and shock wave theory.

Then relate those findings to any dissertation on bombs in the basement or squibs.



[edit on 8-7-2006 by Phoenix]



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Wayne Trumpman??

Whos he?

A google search turns up zero credentials for a 'Wayne Trumpman' Are you sure thats his name?

How can it be that the expertise of hundreds of scientists trained in necessary and exacting fields are discounted.........but..WAYNE TRUMPMAN....well 'trumps' them?



Please address the material of the paper if you want to raise hell about something. His name doesn't mean a damned thing.


Do you mean the old CAST IRON stoves..or the steel firebrick lined ones?
Doesn't matter. Its a straw herring.


Can you explain why? Virtually the same kind of material, and virtually the exact same fire. And I've not heard of a single iron or steel stove ever even glowing a dull red.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
So you're going to accept and lead others to believe that this structure sans any other problem such as fire/impact would remain viable with 80% of the perimeter columns removed or 75% of the total as detailed above?


On a single floor, yes, roughly (I understand you're never going to get any exact figures here -- let alone get anything 100% accurate the actual state of the buildings). But you have nothing approaching, even remotely, any of those figures even when you take the damage from ALL of the floors and look at it as if it occured to a single floor.

Remember that the perimeter columns weren't just stacked on top of each other the whole way up, so that knocking some out dooms all of the ones above to fall straight down. There were also laterally braced all the way across, in a staggered pattern, with spandrel plates, fitting together like a strong, tight-fitting jigsaw model.






And you have no problem with the math nor the logic in the above assertion?


Would you like to point some out?

Maybe NIST just published bad figures and you'd like to call them up.




Suffice to say an individual floor load has little to do with column design strength and factoring ultimate load carrying ability.


We seem to agree that any exact figure on how much any columns could carry before failing, and the exact division between core and perimeter columns and all that is going to be hard, if not impossible to find, right? It's complex. Even NIST uses words like "roughly" or etc. when describing how the loads were divided up on each floor between the perimeter and core columns, and that's a pretty important set of figures to have.

But let's put this into quick context: Mr. Trumpman is trying to show roughly how much damage is being attributed to the fires here. He's trying to show here is that a sizeable majority of columns would have to fail before a floor would no longer be able to redistribute its loads here and there and remain stable.

I don't think anyone is going to give the time to trying to find dead-on figures when you can never reach them. But they're still important figures. And for a quick consideration of about how much damage we would have to attribute to the fires, Trumpman's work should be reliable enough.

What he shows should give a pretty good idea that the impacts alone did squat to those buildings in terms of any global or even local collapse, and that the fires had their work cut out for them. You can see where those calculations at least indicate this, correct? I seriously doubt that those figures are going to be so off that one is going to be mistaken in any opinion that the fires would've had to failed more columns than the impacts did.

Hell, just the simple fact that skyscrapers and over-engineered, and less than 15% of the columns were severed in the impacted regions, should be clue to you enough that a damned lot of failure is being explained away by those fires.



The other fallacy not discussed much is the fact that original engineering calculations are based on all structural elements being intact and working together to more or less distribute overloading across and through the frame equally


This is something else that I don't think is ultimately going to make much difference. It may have if most of the structure were already missing from the impacts, but again, we're talking less than 15%.

The calculations themselves are very theoretical anyway and not meant to be ideal, although engineers will work on them as if they're trying to make their results work out 100% dead-on. There is a difference, though. You'll never get ANY structure to divide the loads equally where there is any sort of failing to a part of the structure. You can't even get it perfect when there ISN'T a failure. You may be able to get damned close in good conditions, but the whole over-engineering thing is in place just for failures and the like, is it not? You over-engineer to make up for things that should never happen. That's the whole point.

But again, I can't see a mere 15% of the structure being knocked out as severely hampering any load redistribution considering how redundant those buildings were.


Deflection is of vital importance when considering column loading. As a column or section of columns has load exceed thier limits deflection in turn transfers much of that load to adjacent columns setting up a "domino" effect if you will. NIST says the design if I recollect correctly was .4" at max rating for a considerable time on an individual column.


Just drops in the bucket, man. If it takes roughly 3/4 of the columns on any given floor to fail before the floor will totally give out, how many buckled columns does that indicate? No -- consider that you'd only need to take out HALF of the columns on any given floor. Ok? That's more than reasonable with the redundancy in those buildings. How many buckled columns would THAT be equivalent too?

And then here's the really important question: How many did we actually see?


The question is and remains how much is too much? obviously we can say deflection did in fact exceed design limits causing an uneven distribution of loading that could well have been a major factor in the resulting collapse.


Would you say that buckled columns cause more of a structural crisis than columns that are completely missing?



Bye the bye has anyone carried out this simple experiment demonstrating compression with-out containment?

Spread a fine layer of flour on a flat dry surface. Take a 3'x3' piece of 1/2" plywood with a hole cut in the center representing 15% of it total surface.
Drop the plywood onto the flat dry surface with the layer of flour from a height of a few inchs.

Tell us what you observe.


Better yet -- tell us what the hell that flour represents in the WTC that would just be laying around, and then do the same experiment with 50 layers of plywood as you describe.

Drop the plywood and see if anything shoots out from 50 layers down.


[edit on 9-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Vushta, where does your actual expertise in anything lie?



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Vushta, where does your actual expertise in anything lie?


Perhaps in accepting what experts of engineering have to say over that of a John Doe? How come all the engineering magazines are sceptic?

Fascinating that people that should be able to recognize that something isn't right do not, and people that are wholly unqualified recognize it!

And don't claim that experts and academics are all scared of the truth, educated people get their theories and designs disproven continuously, and as long as evidence is presented, will accept that. The reason experts/academics are sceptic is cause no ACTUAL evidence has been presented.

CT's just asked a whole lot of stupid questions that they could have found the answers to if they where willing to read anything other than conspiracy websites. It comes down to continue asking questions, and when finally an expert can't answer straight away.... all hell breaks out. The CT screams SEE! I TOLD YOU SO! You cant explains something so my theories must be correct!


The problem is that real life and science don't work like that.


It isn't about answering all questions, it is about determining which theory explains the most questions. You can never answer all questions. As soon as a theory is proven to explain even more than it might replace the older one.

Most 9/11 conspiracy theories don't explain anything, they just leave more questions, so are to be dismissed as hypothesis. An example: If the pentagon attack was performed by a missile, what happened to the plane?

CT's can't answer all those questions without going on an ever faster roller coast ride through Luny ville and before you know it; out comes the tinfoil.


[edit on 9-7-2006 by absolutelynobody]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   


Please address the material of the paper if you want to raise hell about something. His name doesn't mean a damned thing.


Bull!. Try that deflective hogwash on someone thats willing to go on wild goose chases.

If he has zero credentials..zero experience in the fields he's commenting on and attempting to discredit the evaluations of actual trained experts, trying to state "fault his numbers" is a red herring.

Are you implying that training in a particularly complex field is NOT necessary to be taken seriously when stating the calculations of people who ARE trained in those fields are flawed?? You must be kidding.




Can you explain why? Virtually the same kind of material, and virtually the exact same fire. And I've not heard of a single iron or steel stove ever even glowing a dull red.


No they are not the same material and they are designed to function without "melting" or distorting. Another red herring.

living in the far north and having many winters of far below zero temps on occasion lasting for weeks, I can attest from personal experience that some stoves can in fact glow. lol.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Vushta, where does your actual expertise in anything lie?


You've avoided answering virtually any question directed at you...even ones that you yourself promise to answer..I just restated one.....and you answer the question with a question.

Nothing deflective about that.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Vushta, for your information, I've been rather busy lately with personal stuff, don't worry bud, I'll get to it.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join