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.

 

9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

page: 27
7
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I am left to assume that the reason you won't quote anything that backs your statement of doubled core column sets is because you know darned well it's not there to quote.

You have given two sources:

911research.wtc7.net...

and: 911research.wtc7.net...

And despite your repeated attempts to imply there is a statement on either of those sites that backs your double column set statement, there is absolutely none. So, why are you implying there is?

If you stated it in a way that miscommunicates what you meant, then just say so so that we can understand. But to state "two sets" implies one of two things:

1. Two columns running along side each other at each column location (i.e. a doubled column).

2. A core structure within a core structure (i.e. a box within a box).

Neither one of those statements there are correct, so why don't you clear up what you mean - or provide information, as I have already requested, to back your statement? Where we're at now is you making a public statement that implies the Purdue model is worthless because they left your second core column set out...a set there is no evidence ever existed.




posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by undermind
Yep, I've carried out a similar investigation, and I concur completely as far as the professional and scientific community are concerned.

None of them said they were at all surprised when they saw those towers going down.

I wonder whether the folks at Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson were surprised they collapsed. After all, they were confident the WTC towers would suffer only local damage from the impact of a Boeing 707 travelling at 600mph.




posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I'd like to point something out about what coughy just put up. Some people refer to this and make the statement "of the much smaller 707" compared to the 767 that hit the towers. That's an errant statement, and I'd like to point out the comparison here by giving some facts:

Following is for WTC 1:

707-320b

height: (couldn't find this, assumed to be about the same as the width - I used 13' in my calculations)
width: 12'4"
wingspan: 145'9"
length: 152'11"
empty weight: 146400 lb
speed: 600 mph

767-200er

height: 17'9"
width: 16'6"
wingspan: 156'1"
length: 159'2"
empty weight: 181610 lb
speed: 472 mph (worst case scenario from NIST)

Okay, the difference in area of impact comes out to be:

767-200ER fuselage will create about a 4 foot larger hole, which if exactly vertical would be half of a floor more. At 45 degrees this equates to one more external column on the floor of fuselage impact being taken out than would be by the 707. The wingspan difference means that if the plane went in absolutely horizontal it would take out 3 more external columns, but at 45 degrees, this additional damage actually comes out to be 1 more column on two different floors (lower wingtip and upper wingtip).

The 707 at 600 mph has 2.5% more momentum than the 767 at 472 mph. That equates to the 707 being 2.5% more able to cause damage at a point further into the building (i.e. the 707 is going to want to keep going 2.5% more than the 767 after impact).

The 707 at 600 mph has 30% more kinetic energy than the 767 at 472 mph. Since impact damage is the direct result of kinetic energy, nothing else needs to be said on this point.

But to add to the issue, the higher kinetic energy of the 707 is also applied to the smaller impact area. So 30% more kinetic energy is imparted on impact to an area that is roughly 70% of that of the 767.

If we just make ourselves a factor for measuring energy input per unit area of impact this comes out to be 180% more kinetic energy per unit area of impact for the 707 compared to that of the 767. Combine this with the 2.5% more momentum for the 707 and you can quickly see that the 707 would have done a considerable amount more damage to the CORE of the building, than the 767 could have done.


[edit on 2-3-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
That makes me think the building wasn't as 'planeproof' as the designers thought or they had a far lower speed in mind for a lost plane in fog at that very low altitude of 1000' or less in the area of NYC.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


The paper clearly states it was designed for a plane going at 600 mph!!



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I am left to assume that the reason you won't quote anything that backs your statement of doubled core column sets is because you know darned well it's not there to quote.


You are correct. I did not cite specific words "double steel center core". However, I have depended upon people, particularly those who actually read and comprehended the information at the links I provided, to understand that elevator cars need steel frames called elevator shafts. Restroom walls need rough framed walls and floors. Other rooms' walls, also placed inside the center core, need rough framed steel walls and floors. Stairwells need rough framed steel walls. As did the center aisles, between both sets of elevators. All of that located in the central core unit inside the center core supports. That means double steel frame of the central core. It can be no other way in building construction.

The central core perimeter was 135' by 87' at the center of buildings approximately 204' x 204'. That only left approximately 59' on the length sides before meeting up with the double steel of the central core, and 35' on the width sides. Then there was all that secondary support steel to divide office space before meeting up with the double steel core.

Then there were the double steel perimeter walls, plus, all that concrete and more redundant steel and reinforced concrete flooring dividing stories and other rooms inside the central core. That is not counting all the plies of drywall for finish framing, plus, all everyone brought in to finish off their office spaces for work.

I saw none of that in the Purdue model. However, what I provided is the reality of the construction of the two twin towers, as the link, for the blueprints and the other links, did clearly explain, without having to cite anything from those links. I have no idea why cites are required as long as the information clearly appears at the links to substantiate what I briefly state in my own words.

Therefore, since it is your opinion that what I fully substantiated is not correct, though stated to be correct in at least two of the site links I did provide, I once again agree to disagree with your opinion, concerning the unrealistic Purdue simulation. Purdue simulation is in complete conflict with the documented facts, concerning the construction of the WTC. If you refuse to believe that, you are certainly entitled to hold firm to your current belief.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by Pilgrum
 

The paper clearly states it was designed for a plane going at 600 mph!!

It creates a problem with that expected resistance to a plane strike doesn't it. It was never actually verified in a lab for reasons of scale plus there's the gap between design and construction to consider.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I absolutely agree there had to be additional frame out for the structures within the core. No argument there. But that is not equivalent to double the core column structure, by any means.

Your statement that because those structures aren't in the Purdue model makes it in contradiction is incorrect. Those structures would be on the inside of the core columns.

You've already shown that you will resort back to your tactics of "when all else fails imply corruption" by pulling the same thing with the Purdue work as you did with the MIT grad paper. So you've demonstrated how much integrity you'll have on handling any information that contradicts what you're selling.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
It creates a problem with that expected resistance to a plane strike doesn't it. It was never actually verified in a lab for reasons of scale plus there's the gap between design and construction to consider.


How do you know that for certain? Could you please provide reference link to what you asserted? The people issuing that report were putting their professional reputations on the line, in making such claims not tested before certifying those claims in documentation. They can be sued if something goes wrong - business and personallly - on certified documents.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I absolutely agree there had to be additional frame out for the structures within the core. No argument there. But that is not equivalent to double the core column structure, by any means.

Your statement that because those structures aren't in the Purdue model makes it in contradiction is incorrect. Those structures would be on the inside of the core columns.

You've already shown that you will resort back to your tactics of "when all else fails imply corruption" by pulling the same thing with the Purdue work as you did with the MIT grad paper. So you've demonstrated how much integrity you'll have on handling any information that contradicts what you're selling.



What do you think the framing inside the center core was? It was more steel. That is equivalent to double steel framing. There is not a commercial construction industry person who will disagree with that. There are those, in these discussion, actually working in the construction industry and appear to have for quite some time.

People must fully understand the construction of high rises, or people will not understand the twin towers mandatorily required center core double steel framing. The center core supports much more dense and durable than all that steel framing sitting directly inside of the center core supports.

Again, you resort to ad hominem. There is no justification for that in any discussion. Why can't you simply civilly agree to disagree as I repeatedly have? You have failed to explain why you believe the Purdue simulation to be correct, and reality of the twin towers construction to be wrong. You have placed all the onus of validation support on me, and no responsibility for that on yourself.

Please explain what you think my "tactics" are? Validating the reality of the twin towers, while making apt comparison to the incorrectness of the Purdue simulation, is what you consider a "tactic"? Yet, you were the one repeatedly demanding validation and out-of-hand rejecting it.

Again, I agree to disagree on your opinions. That should be the end of all your out-of-hand rejection and ad hominem directed at me, in the topic "9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence". I will not respond to any further use, by you, of red herring and ad hominem. If I choose to post to this discussion in the future, I will be doing free lance reply to topic discussion posts. I will expect supported counterpoints, if someone is going to address those free lance reply points of argument.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
I wonder whether the folks at Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson were surprised they collapsed. After all, they were confident the WTC towers would suffer only local damage from the impact of a Boeing 707 travelling at 600mph.


What site did you get the paper from ?

[edit on 3-2-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 



Actually on 9/11 it was proven that the Towers could withstand a strike of that magnitude, in fact according to NIST it wasn't even the impacts that took the buildings down, we are to believe it was the additional fires that did this. So as far as the 600 mph strike, the fact is the buildings were able to withstand this.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 



To answer your question. John Skilling has said more than once that he feels some responsibility for the collapse, because he was one of the designers. In addtion, they have said more than once that they never thought about the jet fuel when they decided that the buildings would probably withstand being hit by a jet liner.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 

Sorry, ULTIMA1, I don't recall. I just had them on my machine. Pretty sure you could take a key phrase and Google it to find sites though.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
In addtion, they have said more than once that they never thought about the jet fuel when they decided that the buildings would probably withstand being hit by a jet liner.

Of course - this makes perfect sense. These guys tend to be a bit slack when it comes to the detail.

They obviously calculated the potential damage caused by a 600 mile per hour jumbo and forgot it would be carrying jet fuel. Yes, of course, I can see how these people would overlook such a trivial matter.

And it's a good job they did overlook it, because if not, you'd have to completely dismiss them.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
There is some evidence in Ian Vayro's new book, "Tears From Heaven" - see Joshua Books, which makes one wonder about the whole thing. It sounds way out, but because it is almost unbelievable that in itself protects the real perpetrators from being found out. Ian shows that the planes could not have brought down the building at the speed they did collapse to the ground. He asks whether explosives throughout the buildings were detonated the moment the planes hit the Towers. Ian also has a theory as to who or what was behind it all.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


I cannot make you believe it or not. Fact remains, they HAVE said it. So, shall we start a separate thread dealing with other times engineers have screwed up in their assumptions/calculations?

Why do so many people attribute God-like iperfection to the men who designed the WTC?



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
You know.
Please people don't take this as an attack but merely constructive criticism.

Too many people seem to want to seperate the various factors and leave them seperate when (to use a example) not just flower does a cake make.

The impact of the planes and the subsequent damage of a plane penetrating at least to about half the structure before being broken down and then some of the peices of said plane continued on to cause damage coming out the other side but it did not bring down the towers.

But it was a major contributing factor in that it compromised the structure enough that the fire, burning as hot as it was, and the concrete being as good a insolator it is. Was able to aggravate the already existing damage to the point that it failed spectacturally.

But neither the damage of the impact or was the fire was enough to bring that them down, and I am sure the locations they hit had a hand in it.

Otherwords, it wasn't a fire that brought them down.
It wasn't a impact and the subsequent structural damage that brought them down either.
It was the double wammy of massive structure damage to that location and the jet fuel fueled fire that brought them down.
Neither one was suffiencent enough to bring them down just by themselves.

Pure and simple.


[edit on 4-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Well said Wraoth, well said.......not that the conspiracy types will listen......



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Thank you.
And I know they won't listen to me. I said it just so I can honestly say I said it and honestly shared my views. Rather then fall into the line of any drummer's beat.

I am after all (to them) just another ignorant sheeple that follows the NIST report like it was some sort of bible. Once again to THEM. Not in reality.
Which of course I find funny because I haven't even bothered to look at the stupid thing.
And don't really plan to.
I know what I know.
I see what I see.
That leads me to agree with (apparently according to them at least) parts of whatever that silly little report has to say but I could care less. The NIST report so far has only been a source of annoyance to me in that I keep getting told, I am like I said, following it like some sort of bible. When I know that not to be the case.

All that being said.
You know what, ignorance is bliss.
I wish I could not be the inqusitive fellow I am and accept whatever I am told, which I would be doing if I was to just follow the NIST or the "truther" side.
I wish I could stay in a nice safe little cocoon. But that is against my nature. I have to make up my own mind. I can't just accept what anyone tells me is true.
But it would save me alot of frusteration if it was in my nature.


And the next post after this one proves that I won't be listened to.
LoL!
[edit on 3-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 4-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join