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: 14
6
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

The record player spindle analogy is a good one but those spindles are one single piece, not a multitude of individual sections welded and bolted together. The reason those core columns appear so neatly cut is they were made that way and what we see are broken welds - you can see the depth of the welds quite clearly there. The column sections were massively strong particularly in compression but the overall assembly is only as strong as its weakest links.


There is no proof those are broken welds. If they were, the edges would not be so jagged as appears in the photos. They would be clean cut as the day they were forged, cast, and cooled.

That is cut steel most probably using industrial steel cutting lasers. At the website below are graphics, of various industrial steel cutting lasers specifically for cutting structural steel. It takes too long to use blowtorches as used to be done before development of industrial steel laser cutters.

www.directindustry.com...




posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


So.
Show pictures please?
And no a break at a weld would be a relatively smooth. Like the supposed cut beam picture.
Ah forget it. I now remember some things.
**clicks the magic I word**



[edit on 2-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The first theory I saw that attempted to explain the collapse centred on the truss seats at the outer walls and the idea put forward was that there was sufficient heat from the fires to cause the seats to deform and let the trusses go.


That is what is wrong. No jet fuel, even directly applied, can begin to compromise structural steel. Even NIST admitted the ratings of the towers' steel was above standards for any other high rise buildings.

The answer is the second law of thermodynamics proves it. Anyone else, completely understanding the second law, can validate what I just stated.

Basically, what it means is, that jet fuel reaches its highest point of thermal energy equilibrium and cannot burn any hotter. It can start going into entropy (dying out), but it cannot get any higher than its highest point of equilibrium stasis.

I do not care how much more carbon based product is fed to a jet fuel fire. Carbon based products are always cool fires. They are not going to raise the thermal energy of a carbon based jet fuel fire. It has never happened, and never will happen.

NIST personnel are well aware of that, but failed to mention that to anyone else, as did Know Better Eagar, particularly those not completely understanding the second law of thermodynamics.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

Methinks I spy a little of the core standing up here. (refering to a previous post by gottago)


The corret key word you used is little, and very little at that. That is base above ground level and nothing more. Again, too little recognizable internal steel was located. Where did it all go in so short a period of time from 9/11/2001?

In fact, there is too little outside double steel wall sections unaccounted for in tonnage, of what was there at one time. The tonnage simply is not there. It would have been there had that been a natural collapse, which it was not. The evidence, of something completely abnormal, is all that missing tonnage of recognizable intact steel replaced by all that high in iron alloy (steel) mineral granules instead.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Rrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
You can no more surmise how they designed the building to hold its loads than you can tell how many people was in it at impact.


You misunderstood me. I surmise that was the architect's reason for possibly putting in lighter core support units, in order to balance out the weight of the hat trusses. He did not need as much stability and durablity at the hat truss level from the core supports. Therefore, the steel walls, of the supports, did not have to be as dense as other core unit steel walls not in direct contact with the hat trusses. Thus, reducing the weight of the core supports at the highest level in favor of the weight of the hat trusses.

That is my qualified opinion based on my experience from the years I spent working in the construction industry.

Your experience working in the construction industry is.......?



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
It really bothers me every time I hear about a pancake theory of the collapse of the towers. It is so rediculous. How can they expect anyone in the world to believe it?

If the weight of the top part of the building crushed the floors below it, what crushed the top?

We should be looking at photos of the top part of the building sitting on top of the squished lower floors.
Instead, we see the parts of the outer shell blown apart, into surrounding buildings, and the rest turned into tiny pieces.
Anyone who believes the official version, handed out by a government that is, as rapidly as possible, turning into a fascist dictatorship, needs to have his head examined. They all have to be crazy or they actually want to live under fascism.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by jmdewey60]

[edit on 2-2-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



It really bothers me every time I hear about a pancake theory of the collapse of the towers. It is so rediculous. How can they expect anyone in the world to believe it?


1) You mean ridiculous.
2) Easily considering based on my observations that is what happend.
And as I said at least once before I care nothing for the "Official Story".
I don't even really pay attention to it.
NIST be damned.
3) Its also worthy of noting I have been hearing these theories since the second plane hit the building (proto"truther" stuff). And has steadily spiraled farther and farther into implausibility (to me).



If the weight of the top part of the building crushed the floors below it, what crushed the top?


The weight of the structure crushed itself due to not being able to hold itself up anymore due to structural damage.
I really don't understand how that is not understood.
Unless you are insinuating that some secret bonding on a molecular level construction technique was used in the construction of the World Trade Towers and only on the top part?
You are familiar with the term "domino effect" right?
And no welding is not bonding two things on a molecular level.



We should be looking at photos of the top part of the building sitting on top of the squished lower floors.


How?!?!?!?!?!?
So basically your telling me that a falling structure is going to stay intact in the face of what was happening to the point that we should see the top part sitting on top of collapse debris intact??
Pardon my burning sense of skepticism.



Instead, we see the parts of the outer shell blown apart, into surrounding buildings, and the rest turned into tiny pieces.


Falling apart not blown. Structurally compromised building falls down with parts flying everywhere because it is falling apart.



Anyone who believes the official version, handed out by a government that is, as rapidly as possible, turning into a fascit dictatorship, needs to have his head examined. They all have to be crazy or they actually want to ive under fascism.


1) You mean fascist.

2) Sounds like your saying there couldn't be a plot without controlled demolition being correct. Either it was Controlled Demolition or there was simply no duplicity at all. I believe that is called a false positive. Could be wrong.
Do you realize how unrealistic that sounds?


And to that I say look at my thread.
Simple and Elegant Plan (9/11)








1. Conditional Probability. Consider this case: you win the lottery jackpot. You are then charged with having cheated, for instance with having bribed lottery officials. At the trial, the prosecutor points out that winning the lottery without cheating is extremely unlikely, and that therefore your being innocent must be comparably unlikely. This reasoning is intuitively faulty — it could be applied to any lottery winner, even though we know somebody wins the lottery every day. The flaw in the logic is that the prosecutor has failed to take account of the low prior probability that you and not somebody else would win the lottery in the first place. One example of this fallacy which was once routinely used in Britain among child care agencies and law enforcement [1] was Meadow's law, which led to a number of highly publicised cases of wrongful conviction for murder. The law claimed that in child cot death (SIDS) "One is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder unless there is proof to the contrary."

Source: Wikipedia Entry: Prosecutor's_fallacy

[edit on 2-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

The weight of the structure crushed itself due to not being able to hold itself up anymore due to structural damage.
I really don't understand how that is not understood.
You are familiar with the term "domino effect" right?


That is what Eagar (author of the WH "official" report), NIST, the 9/11 Commission, and FEMA fed the general public. Which is why so many qualified scientists and laypersons, versed in the sciences, have aptly refuted their preposterous hypothesis as pseudo-science. The laws of physics belie the "official" reports.

You may not chose to believe that. That is your rightful choice. But to attempt to dispute opposing points of argument, is a continuous excercise in futility for you. It is self-evident in the points of argument you continue to present leaving out science. So did Eagar, the White House administration, NIST, the 9/11 Commission, and FEMA.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Yes I should place my blind trust in you my friend.
You are the messiah of 9/11 knowledge.
I am not worthy!

Too bad you take asking for credentials as an attack.

I listen to no one blindly.
Especially when they tell me the things that I see are wrong.
Not to forget insult my intelligence multiple times.
Momma didn't raise no fool. To quote an old saying.
And like I said NIST be damned.

Please excuse my tongue in cheekiness but I think the situation calls for it.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


That is not what I stated. However, you have made it self-evident you certainly have no qualms in full acceptance, at face value, the presenatations of Eagar, the WH administration, NIST, 9/11 Commission, and FEMA.

At this point, you leave me no choice but to agree to disagree.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Wraoth you are missing the point completely. The physical points we bring up are not being pulled out of our rears.

If only people would go study some basic physics instead of just reading what 'supporters' of the official story are telling you. You are putting your faith in something you are being told, but it's obvious you don't understand it, like most de-bunkers.

Domino-effect? Show me any example in the physical world that follows the domino effect as you think happened in the towers. If this domino-effect is a real world physical reality that causes objects to crush themselves and ejected themselves laterally at great force, then there would be precedence.
Good luck finding any...

Again I'm trying to reason with you not give you an opinion. If this domino-effect is true then there will be lots of examples for you to compare to.
Physics works the same way no matter what, that is why it is so important to understand to be able to understand why a natural global collapse is impossible. Ask someone who has no bias about the collapses, hard to find I know but if you ask someone who hasn't heard the official story they would probably agree with this guy...

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 2/2/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Seeing as to how your obviously missing it.
Here is the statement made bigger, in bold letters, and underlined.

I listen to no one blindly.
Especially when they tell me the things that I see are wrong.
Not to forget insult my intelligence multiple times.
Momma didn't raise no fool. To quote an old saying.
And like I said NIST be damned.




[edit on 2-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


I have to be careful about what I say, I have already been warned about making "negative" posts. (otherwise, I might give my opinion of which catigory you fall under, as specified in my earlier post)
I am not some sort of logictition, or engineer, or philosopher. I am just looking at this from a practical point of view.
Have you ever manualy taken apart buildings? You should try it sometime. You would be suprised at how much effort it takes to break things apart.
All you have to do is look at the pictures of building seven, laying on the ground. That is what you end up with, after a controlled demolition.
The twin towers obviously were subjected to something worse than a normal controlled demolition.
If you take a big metal box, and put it on top of something that is not strong enough to support its weight, and it colapses, then what reason could there be for the big metal box to disintegrate?
My opinion is that there is no answer for that question. It is also my opinion that there are people who do not like these simple observations to be allowed to be made, without throwing something out, to try to discredit it.
Just a simple question, why is the top of the building not lying on top of the debris pile?
And just because you are so good at answering these kinds of questions, let me pose another one. Have you ever built a membrane roof?
It is made by gluing together big rubber sheets. It is prominent in the pictures of the Oklahoma City bombing. It is able to survive a bomb that takes out half the building. Where are the roofs from the towers? If the towers really just fell, there would have been two giant rubber sheets lying on top of the rubble.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


No my friend your trying to indoctrinate me with the party lines.
No reasoning to it.
Not to forget repeatedly insulting my intelligence.





Physics works the same way no matter what,


Hmmmmm quantum physics come to mind as just an example?
And like I said before and nearly got banned for.
You vastly overestimate the force of friction/resistance.

Its not going to stop a collapse.
Here is the scenario I see.

1) The supports holding what is it like 10 or more floors give out. Highly doubtfully all at once but a progressive failing.
2) All those floors fall down onto the floor below it which was most likely affected by the impact as well. A floor that it should be noted gets damaged still more by way of the impact of the stuff falling on it, reducing its ability to hold up any weight much less the wait that just fell on it. So it fails. This is where it speeds up.
3) It dumps its weight and the weight of that fell onto the next floor with similar results.
4) Repeat til the nothing is left to fall.

You should note this not did all happen at once but is a linear progressive thing.

Not to forget your asking for precedents on events that have no precedents.
Never before in recorded history has a 757 ran into a building of the Twin Tower's design. Much less two.
If you wanted to use that particular tact you can argue any situation you want even a giant invisible ID4 mothership zapping it.
Though I would have to call you crazy then.




And here we go on this fun fun ride again.



[edit on 2-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Ok.
The Oklahoma City blast is nothing like 9/11 sorry to tell you.
Except they were both terrorist attacks.
The Twin Towers were penetrated and had something come out the other side.
Oklahoma City has its front blown off.
I see vast differences in both the damage sustained and how it was damaged.



If you take a big metal box, and put it on top of something that is not strong enough to support its weight, and it colapses, then what reason could there be for the big metal box to disintegrate?


It wasn't a big metal box by any stretch of the imagination except well yours or anyone who rides into your rescue in this post.



Just a simple question, why is the top of the building not lying on top of the debris pile?


Once again. Falling apart remember?
Unless they figured out molecular bonding of two formerly seperate materials those material inherently CAN come apart.

Ok more broken records statements I can continue to make but I think I shall just stop I have to go to work.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Please no-one think I'm dictating a position on the collapse - I'm just relating what I saw and what I feel is possible. I remain flexible and non-aligned with what you call 'official' theory.

I agree that a mechanism involving forcefully crushing the core is unlikely so I'm presenting the possibility that the collapse went through the floors themselves leaving the core 'orphaned' and unable to hold itself up with a number of fractured welded joints. The floors alone would present little resistance, certainly not enough to stop such a falling mass.

I don't like the 'pancake' term either but I don't feel there's any conspiracy in how the buildings came down. We just haven't understood the mechanism as yet but, from a structural design point of view, we really need to come to grips with it ASAP.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
No my friend your trying to indoctrinate me with the party lines.
No reasoning to it.
Not to forget repeatedly insulting my intelligence.


LOL are you kidding? I'm trying to indoctrinate you? What party line would that be, Newtons? You are not doubting me my friend you are doubting the laws of physics, and it's obvious you don't understand. Well I'm done debating with you because well, I'll not say cause I've already got one warn. If you know so much then why haven't you shown how a building can fall with no sign of resistance? Why not just admit you can't? Otherwise you are just looking like someone who wants to argue, and doesn't care about getting to the truth.

I keep telling you not to believe me and go research some physics for yourself, and stay away from biased 9-11 sites, pro and con. Forget conspiracies or political agendas, look at the real world physics of the event. That's all I do, my motivation has nothing to do with 'party lines'. If you would make less assumptions about people and events and get some real world experience you'll learn far more.


You need to learn who is really doing the 'indoctrinating'...



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Is there any possiblity of you cutting the ad hominem bs?
Much less the continued off the cuff assumptions as to what I am doing, have done, and get my information?
I have stated my problems with your logic (and your statements as to the facts of physics) and you repeatedly ignore them or just revert to bashing me. And continue on your unsubstanciated rant about how such a sheeple I am.
Even after I point out the fact I don't care what NIST or anyone else on the "official report" side has to say about it.

And it would be kewl if you'd just leave it alone.
But of course you refuse and continue this little game your playing.

So come on, what historical precedent is there for a 757 hitting a building of the Twin Tower's designs?





[edit on 2-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   
There are videos showing firemen in the rubble dust finding bomb trigger detonaters. There were even interviews of people who ran out of the building describing loud explosions. Even on the video of the collapse, you can see smoke emerging from the lower levels of the building, spots the plane didn't even hit. If there were bombs planted at the buildings base, it would explain why a plane, weighing less that some of the buildings support beams, would cause an entire building that size to completely collapse to the ground, in a matter of minutes, maybe even seconds.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retreiver
There are videos showing firemen in the rubble dust finding bomb trigger detonaters. There were even interviews of people who ran out of the building describing loud explosions.

Do you have any links to those accounts of discovered detonators?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join