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.

 

Controversial 911 Images

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I contest that the twin towers were not as dense as a mining truck..no way, no how.

Since this is a picture thread..I will illustrate:




Oh, and each floor of the WTC towers didn't weigh 500,000 tons. And the 767's didn't crash over the entirity of the buildings.. but the 767's still weighed in excess of 150 tons. This force (and weight) was concentrated at the impact site. Pretty easy stuff here guys.


[edit on 8-12-2007 by Taxi-Driver]




posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 


Awesome photo, and it certainly gives one pause. You can't even see the box beams where the sun is shining through. They are there though.

My whole point is that I would like to see some study relating the resistance of the box columns and center core colums to the structural strength of the fuselage and wings and tail.

I have an awful hard time accepting that a 767 glided into the south tower without showing the least deformation or damage, right to it's wingtips and tail. 550 miles per hour is fast, but not bullet fast, and not fast enough to remove doubts from my mind.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
1) Tower seven fell because it was a cheaper and weaker designed truss structure building, it was not constructed in the same manner as many other buildings are.


With all due respect, here's why WTC 7 fell:



[edit on 8-12-2007 by ipsedixit]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
With all due respect, here's why WTC 7 fell:

Pull it means pull the firefighters off the building. The same way that we would pull a ramp team off the ramp in a lightning storm. Its just an expression, its not a literal statement. Same way that we would call a flight “on the deck” when it landed, it was certainly not “on” a literal “deck”. Its one of those cool, cocky sounding things that guys in those kind of jobs tend to say.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 

defcon5, I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity. You're not the guy in the basball hat who was interviewed on the street just after the collapses of the towers are you. The one featured in the octopus videos as the obvious infomercial actor plant? One final question, has butter ever melted in your mouth?



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
defcon5, I'm beginning to doubt your sincerity. You're not the guy in the basball hat who was interviewed on the street just after the collapses of the towers are you. The one featured in the octopus videos as the obvious infomercial actor plant? One final question, has butter ever melted in your mouth?

I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, so I don’t have anyway to answer that.
HM... I think butter melts in everyone's mouth.

[edit on 12/8/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, so I don’t have anyway to answer that.
HM... I think butter melts in everyone's mouth.


Is this you defcon5? Are you, like, famous already?




posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 




My whole point is that I would like to see some study relating the resistance of the box columns and center core colums to the structural strength of the fuselage and wings and tail.


Since this is an unprecenented event, it is hard to definately say what kind of damage would/could have been done...

However many steel support columns at the Pentagon were completely taken out by a smaller 757. Of course the situation and building dynamics are different, but it is fair to imagine that the support core of the WTC's were damaged. How much is always going to be somewhat unknown.


I have an awful hard time accepting that a 767 glided into the south tower without showing the least deformation or damage, right to it's wingtips and tail. 550 miles per hour is fast, but not bullet fast, and not fast enough to remove doubts from my mind.


I wouldn't say it glided, perhaps accelerated. I feel that many people overestimate the strength of the WTC towers. They were strong , yes, but by looking at the design they were not impervious like a tank, or Mining truck. They were hollow tubes with a center support...the Tank-like resistance would not be met until the aircraft collides with the center core. This due to velocity.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Is this you defcon5? Are you, like, famous already?

Considering that I don't live in New York, and where I do live is right on my profile, you figure it out.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Taxi-Driver
 

What you are saying makes sense in general terms, but I am still perplexed by what I saw in the slo-mo views of the South Tower impact.

I'd really like to see some kind of detailed study of that impact. The thing that bugs me is that as soon as the plane makes contact with the beams in the building, parts of the structure of the plane are in fact colliding with one another.

Impact force is being transmitted through all the structural members of the plane and nowhere is there a sign of stress on the plane. It is an understatement to say that this is astounding.

If the fuselage's velocity was reduced suddenly, even by a tiny fraction, the stress on the wings caused by the weight of the engines would be very large. There is no sign of any sort of break-up of the plane whatsoever upon entry. Something fishy is going on there.

Was some kind of explosive penetrator used, were preplanted detonations set off on impact? Was it holograms? I haven't a clue.



[edit on 8-12-2007 by ipsedixit]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Considering that I don't live in New York, and where I do live is right on my profile, you figure it out.


Yes sir!



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Probably because you would need a high speed camera to see ANYTHING like that. A normal video camera wouldn't even come close to catching that sort of thing.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

You might be right. I'm not a blind ideologue on the subject, but I think something should have shown up even with ordinary cameras.

This discussion has been done over and over. People just see it the way they see it and judge accordingly.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
You do know that the only reason I let you off the hook that time is because I was asked to let you off the hook.


By who? Why would you even if you were asked?
I wouldn't have. But that's beside the point, I am very curious who would have asked you to "let it go".

The only way I can see anyone in staff asking that would be if you were spamming the question over and over, that being said, you certainly could have U2Ued Lear and found out why he wasn't answering it.

Springer...



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
One correct to the arguments.

The 150 to 500,000 argument has a huge flaw in it.

The energy carried by a MOVING object is it's mass times the square of it's speed, thus you can damage heavy things with light things. This is why a bullet of just a few grams can blast open a body or rip through steel plates. Also, density plays a roll. A 5 ton blimp is easier to break than a 5 ton dump truck. The WTC were low density and hit by a fast objects. That part actually makes sense.

I'm not saying there isn't more at work in their collapse, but rather that the argument doesn't hold much weight, pun intended.

You are forgetting two important points:

1) The designers had intended for a fully loaded 707 to crash into the building.

2) The 767 that crashed into it that day was not fully loaded (76 pax going 2000 nm).

The result? The 767 was a lighter mass than the designers had intended crashing into it, even though it was traveling faster.

We also know that the structures sustained the damage and DID NOT COLLAPSE. It took 57 minutes for them to do so. That means the energy of the impact was absorbed, the building reconfigured the load distribution, the energy had dissipated, ad the building remained standing.

You can't beat Physics, and the fact the building remained standing for that long demonstrated that the design worked. If the design was flawed, they would have collapsed sooner, whilst the buildings were still being reloaded and absorbing the energy.

I know at this point you could argue structural failure as a result of the reconfiguration of the tower, but this didn't happen. Why? Because the building fell vertically. Yes bits flew out the sides, but we're not talking the bulk of the structure. If it truly collapsed, it would have fallen sideways - you just can't beat physics.

Like the surrounding buildings that had large pieces knocked out of them, with the rest of the structure standing, a similar thing would have occurred to the WTC - IF IT FELL, but it did not.

Another thing to remember is that once the aircraft hit - it didn't come to a dead stop. Why? Because its kinetic energy was not totally absorbed by the building - it kept moving. In fact, as we know, it even came out the other side of the building. What does that mean? Not all the kinetic energy of the aircraft was absorbed in the first place!!

I'm not arguing with you here, just stating some hard facts that constantly get overlooked when people talk about high-speed aircraft hitting the WTC.

If the WTC was solid concrete, then yes, I'd agree the impact would be huge, but it wasn't as big as you'd think. Don't forget also that the building would sway as a result - this too is dissipation of energy, which further reduces the impact of the aircraft upon the structure of the building. The fact the building survived this period standing is testament to the design. It is not why it fell.

EDIT: regarding the mass of the buildings - no, each floor wouldn't be 500,000 tons - that would be the ENTIRE STRUCTURES WEIGHT, getting lighter "per floor" as you got to the top of the building. Each floor was closer to 5,000 tons (and less than that, as the foundations would be the heaviest part).

[edit on 9-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join