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.

 

NY's Finest Tour Guide Pokes Major Holes in the CD Theory

page: 11
17
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Griff, also when thermobarics were used, you wouldn't find back any proof of such detonations afterwards, since it essentially is a double gaseous explosion, but with a very destructive second blow.
You know I read, and wrote a lot here about thermobaric explosives, and you can find that info easily back here now.

I see proof of (eventual thermobaric) explosions in these pictures :

thewebfairy.com...

Study the real big puffs of smoke being expelled at various points at the two walls we see in the video clip in the upper left corner of those 4 picture windows, at collapse initiation.


And what happened inside the WTC tower when those slip-sliding perimeter wall column sections slid down, as can be seen in my earlier posted YouTube link?
( www.abovetopsecret.com... )

That was very strange, since you can see that at collapse initiation, only a few perimeter columns slid away or tilted toward the sliding columns.
This can only happen when those perimeter columns were either totally disconnected from the floor slabs, or the floor slabs were cut from the core columns.

All in all, a very strange initiation event, clearly to be seen.

[edit on 20/11/07 by LaBTop]




posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by nicepants
I'm curious....should/could something be "flying out" if it weighed less? How much?


Well what do you think? What does your common sense tell you?

Common sense, and a little real world experience, tells me something weighing in the tons would require massive energy to eject it laterally 600 ft, especially when that piece had to become detached from many welds and fasteners first.

If the facade simply snapped cause it couldn't hold the weight, due the the core failing, then I wouldn't expect such forceful expulsions of massive pieces. A building that cannot hold it's own weight is not going to start throwing pieces of itself laterally. All the force acting on it is vertical. Pieces would fall away and down, not be ejected 600ft. That takes an external force, but in this situation, according to official story, all the energy supposedly came from the building itself, i.e. from it's weight, due to the weakened columns, so gravity would be the only force acting here.

Obviously though that's not what we see. So there had imo to have been another energy acting on the building to forcefully cause so much destruction and ejection of massive columns.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Anok,

You have yet to give us that physics lesson that I requested. your claim that there were pieces of steel that weighed tons ejected over 600 ft? Tell me (us) what caused this.

Please also point out the evidence to your claims.

thanks



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Common sense, and a little real world experience, tells me something weighing in the tons would require massive energy to eject it laterally 600 ft, especially when that piece had to become detached from many welds and fasteners first.


Not to mention the moment (in the opposite direction of out) created on the exterior facade columns that would be a result of inwardly bowed columns and failing floors. Kind of like wanting to pull itself inward.

Moment equals force multiplied by the distance to the member's centroid (basically the center but a little more complicated) called the moment arm. It acts in a rotational direction of the force, not opposite it. If the floor connections stayed intact (as Nist says they did), then there would be a huge moment created on the facade columns. Forcing them to be pulled into the opposite direction of outwards.....which would be inwards.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.


All the force acting on it is vertical.


You're correct in that the force is acting vertical but there is also a moment that acts lateral (rotational really), but see above for why common sense tells us the facade would be pulled in instead of exploding out.

Unless of course the perfect storm happened (once again) and the unbuckled exterior columns fell exactly on top of the unbuckled part directly below it creating another buckle farther down in an outward direction. I wonder what the chances are of that (on top of everything else)? Not to mention, twice.

[edit on 11/20/2007 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Griff, also when thermobarics were used, you wouldn't find back any proof of such detonations afterwards, since it essentially is a double gaseous explosion, but with a very destructive second blow.


Yeah, I should have been more clear. I didn't mean conventional explosives as they would be too loud IMO (thanks Damocles).

But, it was only a scenario of how I'd do it anyway.



posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
your claim that there were pieces of steel that weighed tons ejected over 600 ft?


Are you saying there weren't? Or are you questioning the actual weight and distance? Because I've already stated that the exterior walls would tend to want to be pulled inward. Think of a soda can. Or even one of those toy construction sets. Imagine that you can push the center of the can and make it collapse. Would it want to pull itself inward or explode outward?

Remember that if the connections at the floors to the columns did fail, then there would be no horizontal force or moment acting on the columns anymore. So, in either scenario, the facade would tend to fail inward IMO.


Tell me (us) what caused this.


I think we'd all like to know.

[edit on 11/20/2007 by Griff]



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I think we'd all like to know.


I'd like to know what size explosive would require this. Thanks



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 



Do you know what ive noticed about you. your like a dog trying to catch its own tail...all you do is go over and over the same points even though people have proven to you beyond all reasonable doubt that the official story is a load of lies, and to keep from looking guilty they just don't answer the questions people are asking about 9/11.

Your either paid to do this, or you enjoy arguing with people day in day out and attempted to add ridicule to the argument to make you seem more credible.

You seem locked into a continual spin, all we want is to get to the bottom off this once and for all, things don't make sense and they don't add up, and the world is being turned into a war zone all because of 9/11. why should hard questions not be answered??? really...all it means is they have something to hide. why not put your efforts to solving the mysteries behind the attacks instead of working to disrupt threads all the time?



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew5012
Your either paid to do this, or you enjoy arguing with people day in day out


It's the second one. I wonder how many times he's going to be told this before he realizes it himself, because I've said it to him before and he just wonders why I want to 'make him look bad for no reason'; his concern is just whether he's "looking good" or "looking bad" apparently. This is like a game to him, not anything of any real informational value.



Originally posted by CaptainObvious
You have yet to give us that physics lesson that I requested. your claim that there were pieces of steel that weighed tons ejected over 600 ft? Tell me (us) what caused this.


He's talking about the sections of exterior columns from WTC1 that hit the Winter Garden. The amount of energy required to move it that far laterally is enormous, so it doesn't really matter what did it. What's important to realize is that nothing the NIST team considered could do it.

If you want a "physics lesson," when you're modeling the collapses in 2 or 3 dimensions, and you want to represent the mass crushing the floors, that would be going "down." Straight down, at -90 degrees (the negative part of the "y-axis") if 0 degrees corresponds to due East. To cause something to fly out horizontally, moving at 0 degrees or 180 degrees on the positive "x-axis", there has to actually be a force applied in that direction. But the mass is coming straight down.

Realistically you have an extremely complex system (the towers collapsing), and some people have suggested that maybe torsion forces from individual impacts between the falling masses could happen at just the right angle to send something out laterally. There's nothing wrong with that idea by itself, but when you look at the bigger picture of what was going on, you almost all of mass being hurled out laterally (or at least with a horizontal component, which still requires force in that direction)! Something around 80% of the towers' masses at least were ejected outsides of the footprints during the collapses, and came to rest on the ground somewhere else in the complex or even outside of the complex (as the case with the multiple-ton sections that hit the Winter Garden). And on top of that, individual pieces of steel coming down and smashing each other have to have some component of momentum to them in the direction they're going to theoretically make these ejected pieces travel, before they collide. And the force they impart during the collision (mostly dependent upon mass probably) determines how far the impacted member is going to go (along with the impacted object's moment of inertia, etc.).

I very seriously doubt 80% of the mass of the towers is going to be ejected by chance from individual impacts lining up the right way, especially when the collapse itself supposedly depends upon this same mass falling straight down and providing all the energy that would send all this mass outwards. And the fact that so much mass landed outside of the footprints, and so little landed inside, is pretty good reason in itself to reconsider theories that necessitate a "driving mass" to come slamming down, since once really wasn't existent the whole way down.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Matthew5012
 


hey Matt... Please point out to ONE thread where I have lied, intentionally given false information, or have been wrong. Sorry to say, but I haven't been "proven" wrong on anything. If that were the case, Gorge Bush would be getting a sponge bath from Bubba at a federal prison.

Please point out to me (you can search up to 250 posts) where I have made a mistake. Prove me wrong and I will correct the statement.

If not, I expect you to withdraw your "chasing your tail" comment.

Thanks...and have a great Thanksgiving.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Sorry to say, but I haven't been "proven" wrong on anything.


Of course not, because whenever someone points something out, you just tell them that they're wrong. It's so easy to be right!


What's your educational background, CO? Do you even have a strong grasp of what a rigorous proof of something is? What was/is your major?



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


C'mon admit it CO you are just dying to call us "twoofers"!



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
...your claim that there were pieces of steel that weighed tons ejected over 600 ft? Tell me (us) what caused this.
Please also point out the evidence to your claims.


Evidence...





What caused it? Can't tell ya bud. All I can tell you is that it took more energy to do that than gravity would supply, don't ya think? If you think not let's see your evidence...

(BTW I notice the page on '9-11myths' that covers the ejected steel doesn't mention the Winter Garden, only the smaller pieces ejected... )

[edit on 22/11/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Captain....

You stated in a post that the collapse of the twin towers did NOT come down at near free fall speeds. and you said this had been agreed on both sides for "years now".

This is a lie. not only does video and seismic evidence prove that the towers took less than 10seconds to fall to earth. but the official story even stats it as well.

Yet you lied and said they they "DID NOT" fall at near free fall...there are many many more over these 250 threads you state you have posted on but this one is enough for me to show you what I mean.

Have a good one also!



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Matthew5012
 


Hi Matt ~

First of all, please tell me how long YOU think it took for the towers to fall. Then tell me how fast you think free fall would be. Then watch the video that was posted.

After you do all three of those things. Please post your findings.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Leo ~

Would you like to be called that ?



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


that link didnt work to any photos.

Can you imbed the images please?



posted on Nov, 22 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by ANOK
 


that link didnt work to any photos.


OK here ya go...






posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Okay, so where is the proof that these pieces were ejected? I mean the Winter Garden is 600 feet away, the tower was over 1,000 feet tall...how do you KNOW that it didnt just fall there? You dont.



posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Okay, so where is the proof that these pieces were ejected? I mean the Winter Garden is 600 feet away, the tower was over 1,000 feet tall...how do you KNOW that it didnt just fall there? You dont.


You don't understand physics. The only way to make a piece move outwards in the first place is by a non-conservative force being applied to it (unless you think gravity suddenly shifted itself to a new direction here, or unless you think the piece was ejecting itself outwards under its own energy -- both absurd, right?).

Well, what applied the force? Pieces just falling over the sides did just that -- fell right over the sides. WTC3 was almost completely destroyed this way. But you need significantly greater energy applied horizontally to send out such large debris onto the Winter Garden.


Exactly where in pancake theory (or whatever it is you believe) does this happen, and how, exactly?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join