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.

 

Investigation for bridge collapse, yes! WTC collapses, nah.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Yeah... they will investigate this disaster and save the evidence to learn how the this catastrophe happened.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

But no. No need to understand why WTC 1,2, and 7 collapsed the way they did because it was purely evil that brought those towers down. It was the planes crashing into the buildings, combined with jet fuel, with a touch of complete hatred towards America's love for freedom that brought down those buildings. Nothing else! No need to figure out how the towers COMPLETELY collapsed disintegrating all the concrete into fine powder, TWICE! In one day! No! No need to try to understand that.

Move on, there's nothing to see here.

"I don’t need no stinkin' physics or an investigation! It's so obvious that it was AL Queda!!!! So ship the steel away as fast as possible so I can get on with my life!! but oh, I will NEVER FORGET!"

China was in desperate need of steel so why not, as a good jester, send them our wtc steel within a few months of the catalyzing event.

Oh, ain't we sooooo generous!!!


End of Post.

P.S. It really does seem that sarcasm is almost my last resort nowadays. This is getting REALLY frustrating.


[edit on 4-8-2007 by Conundrum04]




posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Your 100% right!

I wish the families of the victims of 911 could find justice. I am frustrated as hell, yet I didn't lose anyone. They need closure not endless BS.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I saw pictures of the collapsed bridge.
Massive Concrete and Steel Structure still visible.
It didn't vaporize, what a concept.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Probably because a plane didn't crash into it weakening the structure, you know. It just kind of fell.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conundrum04


China was in desperate need of steel so why not, as a good jester


It was a kind gesture too.

Yeah, but if you try explaining how the steel was shipped off to the average Joe, he will look at you with bewilderment in his eyes.

I recently tried to educate a fellow that lives on my street.
I talked to him about things for a bit then I gave him a copy of '911 press for truth' and 'Why We Fight' and asked him to please watch them.

I checked back 2 weeks later and to my dismay he said that he still had 2 or 3 porn flicks to watch before he could get around to viewing my videos.


There is no saving America. Its a lost cause.
Prepare yourselves is all you can do.

I still talk to people about 911, but my initial optimism that we could expose the blatant cover up of the events surrounding 911 has faded.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
Probably because a plane didn't crash into it weakening the structure, you know. It just kind of fell.



Oh okay. So now we should expect all buildings to crumble into it's own basement pulverizing itself whenever we see a plane crash into a building right?

Of course your next rationale would be "the planes were going very fast! It was BIG. And, oh, all that jet fuel was there too".

I'm already ahead of you.

At best you can argue that the planes initiated the collapse but after that, your agrument is null. The planes no longer matter at that point.

Wouldn't you think, since this has never in the history of the world and the buildings(1,2) were not expected to globally collapse, that it would be the benefit to structural engineers worldwide to find out how this could of happen? And I'm not talking about an investigation when all the evidence has been removed from the scene and most of the steel shipped off and sold.

So you don't find this to be odd at all?



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
My thread "Resources for the Debunker" should give you some insightful information that should answer all your questions.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
It was a kind gesture too.




Thanks for the correction.

I hate it when I misspell a word, or even worse, not use the right word at all. Geez. They will look for any kind of flaw to discredit and ridicule you so thanks again.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
My thread "Resources for the Debunker" should give you some insightful information that should answer all your questions.


I seriously doubt it.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conundrum04

Originally posted by ccaihc
My thread "Resources for the Debunker" should give you some insightful information that should answer all your questions.


I seriously doubt it.


Hey why don't you give it a try. I've read all the conspiracy theorists resources(I even watched loose change all the way through, dear god), you could at least give me the courtesy of reading my resources.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   
The tone of the media coverage around the bridge collapse is very serious and business like. They are really going to get to the bottom of it. They are going to inspect other bridges too. Yes sir!

Just compare it to a lot of the tentative, "question marks hanging in the air" style of a lot of the 9/11 reporting. Reporters at that time were walking on eggs, afraid to say the obvious, accepting the most egregious blather from Bush administration spokespersons.

I'd like to take this opportunity to nominate Alex Jones for the Pulitzer Prize. In fact he can take it home and keep it.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
The tone of the media coverage around the bridge collapse is very serious and business like. They are really going to get to the bottom of it. They are going to inspect other bridges too. Yes sir!

Just compare it to a lot of the tentative, "question marks hanging in the air" style of a lot of the 9/11 reporting. Reporters at that time were walking on eggs, afraid to say the obvious, accepting the most egregious blather from Bush administration spokespersons.

I'd like to take this opportunity to nominate Alex Jones for the Pulitzer Prize. In fact he can take it home and keep it.


Yeah man they only had a huge, bi partisan, congressional study that wrote a thousand page long study on the attacks.

Pssshhhh, that's nothing.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   



There is no saving America. Its a lost cause.
Prepare yourselves is all you can do.

I still talk to people about 911, but my initial optimism that we could expose the blatant cover up of the events surrounding 911 has faded.

You are unfortunately totally right but don't worry this does not happen only in the States its everywhere in the world.
There is a thread about dumbing Americans somewhere well its not only the Us system that is adopting those kind of tactics.



Probably because a plane didn't crash into it weakening the structure, you know. It just kind of fell.


I wish not to offend you but the paragraph above might sum it up.




My thread "Resources for the Debunker" should give you some insightful information that should answer all your questions.


Your sources are fragmented and old ,they have been debunked over and over again. You might want to catch up with the debunkers around this board.

Its not a matter of physics any longer for you guys but it is more a deviation of the truth and reality of the facts.
Learn from Captainnotsoobvious he is very good at it, he throws sometimes a little patriotism here and there connected with accuse of disrespecting the families and blah blah to divert and confuse.
I suggest you get a guide for 911 debunkers manual for dummies. There are many copies around on the net the most popular one are:
popularmechanics.com or Nist.gov; you might want to try FEMA as well.
Or if you wish you can still be a good fellow American citizen and follow the Govt dream about 911. The society will be glad.


[edit on 5-8-2007 by piacenza]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
My thread "Resources for the Debunker" should give you some insightful information that should answer all your questions.


Your sources have already been proved to be out of date bullcrap.

So you've decide the official story is correct. How did you come to that conclusion? Do you have anything to offer the debate other than links to other peoples out of date web sites?

OK assuming you've done your research, you did research this right, you should be able to easily answer a couple of questions, or three?

What conclusion did you come to about the South Towers tilt and rotation as the collapse begins? What is your explanation for the lack of resistance from undamaged welds and fasteners? One more for now, what is your explanation for the pieces of steel, weighing in the tons, that were laterally ejected up to 600ft away from the tower?

You shouldn't have any problem answering these questions, right?



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ccaihc
My thread "Resources for the Debunker" should give you some insightful information that should answer all your questions.


Your sources have already been proved to be out of date bullcrap.

So you've decide the official story is correct. How did you come to that conclusion? Do you have anything to offer the debate other than links to other peoples out of date web sites?

OK assuming you've done your research, you did research this right, you should be able to easily answer a couple of questions, or three?

What conclusion did you come to about the South Towers tilt and rotation as the collapse begins? What is your explanation for the lack of resistance from undamaged welds and fasteners? One more for now, what is your explanation for the pieces of steel, weighing in the tons, that were laterally ejected up to 600ft away from the tower?

You shouldn't have any problem answering these questions, right?


First off I'd like to address your last sentence. Your condecension is not needed. Keep that stuff somewhere else, thanks.

Second, the extent to which those links have been debunked basically amounts to you guys telling me it's been debunked. For the most part, debunking from you guys consists of "LOOK AT THESE PICTURES" which really isn't enough to ME personally to debunk a scientific paper published in a journal. For the most part, the journals are something I trust more.

Thirdly, I'd really like some sources for your claims. I've backed up pretty much everything I've ever said on these forums with some sort of scientific source from somewhere. Having a source for your statements generally will improve my ability to believe what you're saying.

Fourth, and lastly, if you want me to answer those questions, you have to admit to me that I've proved many aspects of the demolition theory false. The problem with conspiracy theorists is that once you prove one aspect of their theory wrong they just move on to the next aspect never acknowledging that they were proven wrong.

Thanks for your time.

[edit on 5-8-2007 by ccaihc]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc

Thirdly, I'd really like some sources for your claims. I've backed up pretty much everything I've ever said on these forums with some sort of scientific source from somewhere. Having a source for your statements generally will improve my ability to believe what you're saying.


2 things..

WTC is 200 yrd away from WTC 1.. DUHH!! In case we are wondering. 200 yrd is 600 feet. 1 yard = 3 ft.


2 Stop quoting everyone you reply to that is right under you.. it dont make sense.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   
no.. you god damn...

ugh.

I was talking about the..

you know what just nevermind. Let him respond. This is between him and I.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   
What conclusion did you come to about the South Towers tilt and rotation as the collapse begins?

www.studyof911.com...
and

Google Video Link





What is your explanation for the lack of resistance from undamaged welds and fasteners?

Dont want to waste life looking this up..



What is your explanation for the pieces of steel, weighing in the tons, that were laterally ejected up to 600ft away from the tower?


Bigger Image


Bigger Image

Winter Garden is 600 ft away from the towers. = 200 yrs.




[edit on 8/5/2007 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 8/5/2007 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 8/5/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link   
I'll start with the 600 foot claim. Here is a calculation I found on another site that explains that it is entirely possible.


In order to allow time for lateral motion, the exterior column(s) that hit WFC 3 were most probably from the upper half of WTC 1. A fall from 1,000 feet to 240 feet would take SQR(2*h/g) = around 6.9 seconds where h = 760 feet and g = 32.17 ft/s^2. In the horizontal plane, a uniform acceleration of 20 m/s^2 for the first second followed by negligible deceleration due to drag for the remaining 5.9 seconds would provide 10 + (5.9 * 20) = 128 metres = 420 feet displacement. At 1,000 feet the WTC 1 perimeter columns, per story, were comprised of:

two flanges of 1/2 x 13.5 x 144 inches each, totalling 1,944 ins^3
one outer web of 1/4 x 13 x 144 inches = 468 ins^3
one inner web of 1/4 x 15.75 x 92 inches = 362 ins^3
one spandrel plate of 3/8 x 40 x 52 inches = 780 ins^3

...totalling 3,554 ins^3 per floor or 10,662 ins^3 = 6.17 ft^3 for a three-floor section which at 490 lb/ft^3 is 3,023 lb (84 pounds per lineal foot) or 1,371 kg. (There is some uncertainty as to the flange thickness; it was known to be only 1/4" at the very highest floors.) The force require to produce an acceleration of 20 m/s^2 in an inertia mass of 1,371 kg is 20 * 1371 = 27,420 N = 6,165 lbf.

The cross-section presented to a wind, per floor, would be 40 x 52 = 2,080 ins^2 for the spandrel plate and 15.75 x 92 = 1,449 ins^2 for the inner web, totalling 3,529 ins^2 per floor or 10,587 ins^2 = 6.83 m^2 for a three-story section of exterior column. (So the required pressure is well under 1 psi.) From the drag equation of

d = Cd * A * r * 0.5 * v^2

we obtain

v = SQR(2 * d / (Cd * A * r))

where r = density of air ~ 1.2 kg/m^3 and assuming a relatively high drag coefficient Cd of 4 / pi ~ 1.27 for a flat plate and d = the previously calculated force of 27,420 N and A = 6.83 m^2 as calculated above. This places the required wind at 72.6 m/s = 162 mph for one second duration. Actual windspeed on the day was up to 10 mph on the ground and up to 20 mph at higher altitude.

Suppose we imagine the collapse initiating at 1,200 feet, and proceeding as per the "pancaking" theory to 1,000 feet. After freely falling 200 feet, the terminal velocity would be SQR(2 * 200 * 32.17 ft/s^2) = 113.4 fps = 77.3 mph. In this theory, there is a small delay due to resistance of the intact building below, but the falling upper section smashes its way through each floor in about 0.1 seconds at the 1,000 feet level. The volume of air per floor is approximately 12 * 200 * 200 feet = 480,000 ft^3. Some will go down, but if the total was forced out through a perimeter of 800 feet by an average height of 6 feet which is an exiting area of 4,800 ft^2, it would (continuing outward) extend for some 100 feet at the end of the 0.1 seconds which is a velocity of 1,000 fps or 682 mph.

Let's set the exiting gases velocity at just 700 fps = 213 m/s, in which case the force acting on the exterior column for 0.1 seconds is given by:

d = Cd * A * r * 0.5 * v^2

= 1.27 * 6.83 * 1.2 * 0.5 * 213^2 ~ 236,000 N

to produce an acceleration of F / m = 236,000 N / 1,371 kg = 172 m/s^2. After 0.1 seconds the velocity of the steel is 17.2 m/s = 38.5 mph, and the horizontal displacement is 0.86 metres. Following another 6.8 seconds at 17.2 m/s the total distance travelled horizontally is 0.86 plus 6.8 * 17.2 ~ 118 metres = 387 feet. The columns have to shear off quickly enough, and the pancaking theory has the problem that the gravitational potential appears to be too low for all the energy sinks, but even this scenario does not appear to rule out the idea that debris could end up a few hundred feet away.


The tilt/rotation is VERY easy to explain. The plane hit building closer to the sides so that side was weaker. When the columns began to fail, they were all failing at the corner. If you take the corner off of something it's going to twist.

[edit on 5-8-2007 by ccaihc]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
The tilt/rotation is VERY easy to explain. The plane hit building closer to the sides so that side was weaker. When the columns began to fail, they were all failing at the corner. If you take the corner off of something it's going to twist.


The problem isn't the tilt itself. It's the fact that it briefly lost its momentum as the vertical collapse began, and the fact that a symmetrical vertical collapse began underneath it, as if it were stressing all points under it symmetrically as if shifted more and more to one side.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join