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.

 

Why Should the WTC Towers Suffer Complete Collapse?

page: 11
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu
reply to post by gottago
 


Before we proceed, are you aware that Jones has moved on from the iron-rich microspheres in the dust thing, and has conceded that it would be the result of the burning of office materials?

Look into flyash. It's the ash produced by incinerators around the world. The spectrographic analysis of Jones' dust and flyash is identical.

He's now moved on to the thermite chips theory.

Care to continue?


Hey let's give it a go.

Jones is broken record and suspect in my book, btw.

First serve:

So, it all was incinerated to fly-ash in 15 secs?

Which was the time it took for the towers to fall and the clouds to be produced--and here I'm being kind, because most of it was produced immediately as the towers fell. Look at a picture.

And a couple of pages ago you said it was ground up by the collapse. I'm getting confused here...

[edit on 26-1-2008 by gottago]




posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Something of which others should also be aware, the first three sections of steel girder drawings, showing aluminum, iron, and magnesium, which are are the same chemical components of thermite. Add sulphur, and it becomes thermate.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Yes, this report needs to be seen and understood. It has some important data in it that is just lying there unnoticed. And the conclusions they draw are also important, but no one has bothered to ponder the implications.

As for the cranes, well you hope people will understand they're not part of the permanent core structure--at least you hope.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago

So, it all was incinerated to fly-ash in 15 secs?


First - you recognize that the analysis of the dust is no longer an issue, correct? That it would be expected as a result of the burning?

Second - note that fly ash is from incinerating materials. The fires lasted for 50 and 100 minutes, and the underground fires may have contributed after that, since they lasted weeks/months. So, now that you've spelled out what was so suspicious in the analysis, the collpases wouldn't be the source of the flyash, but would only serve to apread it around.

Third - there are industrial uses for flyash also. New York used it as a filler material in their roads. So wear and tear on the roads.... like from all the trucks carrying debris to the landfill, would make the flyash more prevalent.

Fourth - it is also used as a soil stabilizer. www.rmajko.com...

I have more....

EDIT: I see you added to your post.

I was saying that the material was ground up because I didn't realize that your concern was the iron spheres found in the dust. Now that I know what you're suspicious about...... we can proceed.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by Richard Gizinu]



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Richard Gizinu
 


No, not in the least. The vast majority of the dust was produced in those 15 seconds. Look at any picture. You're trying to tell me it was incinerated in freefall?

And as I said earlier, you already have 2-4% iron in a random sample. Take away the wallboard, fireproofing and even the concrete and you concentrate the metals to the majority of what's left. The vast majority of the majority being iron. That's rather interesting, don't you think?



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Exactly which roads were running through the twin towers? Since there were none, why deflect to roads?

If they are using fly ash alone as you imply, no wonder they keep returning back every winter like the swallows to Capistrano every spring.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Whether you realize it or not, that has been your complete promotion in these discussions. Do you not realize Eagar's article, in "Popular Mechanics", became the original and only "official" report of the Bush administration?

Only through the promotion of that article right here did I become aware of some eerie correlation


Perhaps I looked at the same pictorial evidence and drew a similar conclusion about a minute aspect of the collapse mechanism because it was self-evident.

I'm still open to rational alternative ideas that fit the evidence as always.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Just something to consider about fly-ash:

The ash from foundries is often used as a filler in concrete mixes because it's cheap and it doesn't weaken the concrete.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago

No, not in the least. The vast majority of the dust was produced in those 15 seconds. Look at any picture. You're trying to tell me it was incinerated in freefall?

And as I said earlier, you already have 2-4% iron in a random sample. Take away the wallboard, fireproofing and even the concrete and you concentrate the metals to the majority of what's left. The vast majority of the majority being iron. That's rather interesting, don't you think?


If you care to counter the sources of iron, go right ahead.

i explained the iron already. Flyash contains iron in those exact %age. There's nothing interesting about it. Concrete has flyash. Drywall sometimes has flyash. Like I said, the list goes on.

I also stated that the office fires burned for 50 and 100 minutes. Your question about incinerating in 15 seconds is therefore a foolish one. You're asking a question about something that wasn't stated by me. Therefore you're constructing a strawman. I don't deal with people that do that. If you want to ask logical questions that come from my statements however, go ahead.

Also, you're asking a question of removing drywall, concrete, etc from the analysis. And then you ask "look at the iron". When you remove those other materials, you also remove some iron with each one. So again, your question is an ill informed and foolish one.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Quite the informed debate here . Tagged to see who wins
J/k
I hope the next prez has the balls to question this tragedy.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Only through the promotion of that article right here did I become aware of some eerie correlation


No "eerie correlation". Fact from the day the article appeared on the magazine stands, in homes, and in businesses. Eagar never bothered to have his article academically or professionally peer reviewed, which is why is was published by Hearst Inc. in "Popular Mechanics".

That is how the "official" White House report came into existence, to be implanted in the brains of people wanting it implanted. Eagar wrote what he was told to write, and was well rewarded for his efforts. It is also why it could not appear in any peer reviewed journal, academic or otherwise. It would never have passed muster when peer reviewed.

Others of us did not believe it. We prefer to analyze, study, research, use any applicable expertise we have, and think for ourselves, regarding 9/11/2001.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Just something to consider about fly-ash:

The ash from foundries is often used as a filler in concrete mixes because it's cheap and it doesn't weaken the concrete.


I know that. However, granuales are not fly ash. Ashes are ashes. Granules are granules.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by ANOK
 


Yea that hitting the iceberg thing was just a hologram. Right?



What kind of response is that? First off don't make assumptions, have I ever mentioned holograms?

Why is it when you guys are proven wrong in your logic you just ignore it and move on to other silly ideas? What happens when you run out of false analogies? Do you think you would actually do some research into the physics of the collapses instead of trying to fool yourselves into denying the truth?

You've got this idea in your head that floors fell on floors causing the whole building to globaly collapse, ignoring a few laws of physics while doing it.

How many more times do I need to ask, how did the floors manage to overcome resistance and not slow down, before it clicks in your head and you actually ask yourself that question? But even before that, have you really thought how does a floors actually fall all at once from asymmetrical damage? How does a floor, that isn't even sitting true and is undergoing 'angular momentum' (WTC 2), manage to do what your little drawing suggests? How can a floor, that is at an angle and who's mass is not directed straight down due to it's angular momentum, do what you suggest?

Why don't you go out and buy a meccano set, or something simular, and build something similar in design to the WTC cores and try to get it to do what the WTC towers did. Use whatever you want, set it on fire, blow it up, hit it with a sledge hammer. Whatever you feel like. You might learn something...

[edit on 26/1/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Ok. Done trying to nail jello to the tree.
Have fun making it nigh impossible to prove anything because the public files away more plausable ideas with your holograms, anti-matter bombs and didn't even collapse at all.
Disinfo is alive and well.
But as I said before I could show you security camera footage (DVR back then probly n not) and show you every nook and cranny and you'd still find some off the wall theory to continue your theories.
But I find I no longer have the stomach to argue with a wall.
Good day all.
And feel free to say whatever will help your egos after I post this.
It is after all a pain in the arse to keep it fed.
I salute your questioning authority, but not taking it to the fifth dimension of Go'Tran.

sidenote: You need the public by the way if you ever want to get the truth and acting as ALOT of you do, well you do the math. Many people crying for the truth is the only way such things will be found out for sure. To attack them as well I will go out on a limb and say
most of you do, well something about honey, vinger and flies comes to mind.

2nd sidenote: Weak rivets aren't the only thing that did in the titanic, smacking an iceburg has done in a few ships, even well designed ones. Mankind is fallable as is his creations. They can and do suffer catastrophic
failures without being intentional and the good designers PLAN FOR IT, which the designers of the titanic did not. You know to minimise the damage.

[edit on 27-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 27-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu

Originally posted by bsbray11

Weight and momentum are completely unrelated terms.


No kidding? Thanks for the earth shattering info.

I was pointing out the fact that his question about weight only is a dumb one.


Then your answer must have been twice as dumb, because not only did you honor the question, but you answered it totally incorrectly. And even if you used the proper terms, the theory you're espousing has serious flaws that have us all here in the first place. In NIST's latest FAQ they have the stupidity to say that the towers were able to keep pancaking because 1 floor could only take 6 floors' worth of dynamic loading. Do you not see an error in that reasoning? Any whatsoever? Or are you just going to keep talking to us like we're a bunch of little kids, and pretending that someone out there actually appreciates all the ego and sarcasm?

[edit on 27-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


There is error in that thought.
Things cannot hold up stuff that is too heavy for them to hold up. Simple as that.

And you really might want to look in the mirror before bitching about others having egos and talking to people like their children. I am not the only one who has noticed this.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   
I keep seeing reference to what the load rating of a single floor may have been but isn't that based on the theoretical capability of an undamaged single floor?

Multiple adjacent floors were wrecked to an unknown extent by the impact of a large aircraft so from my point of view the initial stage of collapse had far more than a single floor separation to accelerate with minimal resistance until it reached the first relatively intact floor. Enough momentum to overcome that first full strength floor? quite possibly

If the planes had gone in level rather than banked the buildings may very well have survived.

[edit on 27/1/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Kindly STAY on topic and cease the personal sniping and insults.

Thank you
FredT, Moderator



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
There is error in that thought.
Things cannot hold up stuff that is too heavy for them to hold up. Simple as that.


I don't believe I ever stated otherwise. But what was overloaded, exactly?

1 floor can take 6 falling onto it. Per NIST, right? Here's the problem: what happens to the first floor to fall, when it hits the floor below it?

What would be "overloaded" here and what exactly do you mean by "overloaded"? The design load was exceeded? Or the ultimate strengths? What?


And you really might want to look in the mirror before bitching about others having egos and talking to people like their children. I am not the only one who has noticed this.


Hey, I'll reciprocate it. There's your mirror. I'm not an ass to anyone that isn't an ass to me (or someone else) first. Mr. Gizinu here showed up from day 1 hellbent on teaching kindergarten. Are you surprised you aren't being respected back?

[edit on 27-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I keep seeing reference to what the load rating of a single floor may have been but isn't that based on the theoretical capability of an undamaged single floor?


No. It is a figure usually given in how much weight can be distributed over the floor per square foot, or etc.

And there is no such thing, really, as a "single floor." Each floor was a lot more complex than just 1 unit that just up and goes at the same time.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join