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 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 23
10
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Because the design was vastly different.
One design will fail where another will not.


No, not really they were steel buildings jsut like the WTC buidlings.

No steel building has ever collapsed due to fire and structural damage before or after the WTC buildings.


You're saying it's valid because they were both steel buildings. Let's take that analogy to something else that is more recognizable to everyone.

Let's say a VW bug runs into a brick wall. You would expect the vw bug to be totaled and some damage to the brick wall.
Now lets say a full size Ford F-150 pickup were to hit that same wall. If your analogy is reasonable, both vehicles would do the same amount of damage to the wall. I am eliminating a massive amount of variables just for ease of explanation.




posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
And if you realy think about it?? realy think now!!


Who here hasnt gotin smatter or more aware since 9/11

its changed us all to a degree

i love what 9/11 has done to my intelect

but i wish it didnt take all that has died since 9/11 to get that simple job of Waking the Hell up


PS NEVER FORGET 9/11 no matter what

[edit on 23-3-2008 by plasmacutter]


Excellent way to look at it. I agree.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123I'm sorry I missed these posts. Could you refer back to them for me? Thanks.


www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.



Originally posted by jfj123
You're saying it's valid because they were both steel buildings.


Steel buildings are built to certain standards. They are built to withstand many forces.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Buildings NOT of the configuration or the exact damage of the TWIN TOWERS.


But what about buidlings that had longer lasting fires and more damage and still did not collapse?



This is what the NIST final report says:
"This report describes how the aircraft impact and subsequent fires led to the collapse of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings".

It doesn't say one or the other but BOTH the impact and the fires led to the collapses.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I agree with those reports and we've all seen that the buildings did survive the initial impacts and managed to stay up long enough for the majority of occupants to escape them. But they only lasted about an hour or so.


But report state the buildings withstood the planes impacts, and not just from the intial impact, that they should have kept standing.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.


What is the news source of this report?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
It doesn't say one or the other but BOTH the impact and the fires led to the collapses.


Well the final NIST reports does contridict prior reports that state the buidligns withstood the planes imapcts and the fires did not get hot enough or burn long enough to cause the collapse.

But what about buidlings that had LONGER lasting fires and MORE structural damage then the WTC buildings and did not collapse?


Originally posted by jfj123
What is the news source of this report?


www.tms.org...
TMS OnLine: Home of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society






[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by jfj123
 

i doubt your sincerity in this issue.

Why? I've never said I was kidding at any point.


you are requiring solid evidence BEFORE an "independent" investigation starts,

I'm not REQUIRING anything. Re-read the thread heading. It asks a question.


to answer the most pressing questions, that has the majority of americans believing this was an inside job.

Can you post the pole information that indicates this? Thanks.


we as americans have a duty to question our government and it's practices of secrecy and vagueness.

Yes.


to have the most poignant questions, not answered to the full satisfaction of the majority of americans, and to spend the time and effort involved in this approach, furthers a distrust in the government.

You will never get full discloser for everything although I would love it if we could.


][therefore...that IS your proof.

I've never asked for proof, only evidence. There's a huge difference.


it is not up to us, as average americans to prove incompetance or corruption.

Then who should we leave it up to? The government? Oh wait, that would be a bad idea, wouldn't it?


we pay our representative government officials quite well, to speak and act for us.

So now you are saying we should trust our government to take care of it's own business.


they must fear us and not the other way around.

I'd settle for respect.


they are the ones that need to be called into question for their lack of a detailed, indepth, and NON-POLITICAl explanation to questions that are asked , not the american people that are trying to make sense of the inconsistantcies of the late and underfunded 9/11 commission.

So now you're once again suggesting that the corrupt government should police itself.


50 million dollars were spent on the shuttle disaster investigation, and it was up and running in less then 60 days. the 9/11 commission took 445 days to convene and spent 23 million dollars. shuttle lose of life? 7...9/11 loss of life? 3000. are you achieving some clarity in this matter?

You said that we should leave this up to our representatives to take care of this for us and this is how they did it so-CASE CLOSED.


apparently you accept the moral charecter of the wealthy and powerful without question,

I've never said that. What I've said is that the reports sound reasonably accurate and in addition, I've never seen any evidence to disprove them. If I do see some evidence, I'll change my position. What many people just don't get is that I'm not fighting for a side but the truth whatever it may be.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Buildings NOT of the configuration or the exact damage of the TWIN TOWERS.


I still want to know want you ment by this statement.

"And doesn't blowing out the supports mean your essentially damaging the structure???? "

What or who blew out the supports ?

We really need to stop pretending we don't know what each other means and deliberately taking things out of context here. I know what he meant and you know what he meant. Posts like this only lead down a flame road. Let's stop that and go back to discussing things in a bit more productive manor.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by plasmacutter
u all should read from top to bottom


You need to read the following from a firefighter site and maybe learn something.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.


[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Can you actually show there was more structural damage in these buildings then the WTC's and in addition that the buildings structures were similar enough for a valid comparison?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Now now u have to give that steel for buildings is basicly the same just placement and thinkness very,


But that dosent matter ealy

his point i think is
the melting point of steel is static it dose not change

so his other buildings do make a good point

1 inch plate is 1 inch plate and 2 inch plate is 2 inch plate we all agree on that.

so he dose have a point


The problem is that those buildings didn't have planes fly into them. The physical damage caused by the planes may or may not be comparable to the damage from a fire alone in another building. For example, the planes that hit the buildings, moved them laterally and those other buildings with just fires, didn't have that applied to them.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Sure both included fire and structural damage.


But the facts are facts, the simple facts are the WTC buildings have been the only steel buildings to ever collapse from fire and structural damage.


Let me finish your sentence... structural damage from plane impacts.

and,
SO?

It doesn't prove anything. There are plenty of firsts all the time, right?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by space cadet
When an airplane of this size hits a building the size of one of the twin towers, it enters the building, the fuel from the plane is ignited as it rushes down stairs and elevator shafts to the bottom floor desimating everything in its path, Why is that so hard to understand or believe?


Several reasons why this is hard to believe.

1. The plane that hit the second tower went in at an angle through the side of the buidling not causing as much damage.

How do you know this and what is the cutoff point for damage that would or wouldn't cause the collapse?


2. Reports state the buildings withstood the planes impacts.

No they don't. You keep taking them out of context. Read the NIST final report to get the official cause, don't use news reports.


3. Reports state the majority of the fuel was burned off OUTSIDE the buildings. What was left burned off quickly.

Please post this info.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Let me finish your sentence... structural damage from plane impacts.


Um, don't you understand that structural damge is structural damage, if its caused by planes or fires its still structural damage?

I have shown buildings that had more structural damge then the WTC buildings and they did not collapse.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by plasmacutter
 


And I feel it incumbant on me that I point out the simple fact that using other buildings as an example to say that another building of a different design and nature of damage will react the same way is ignorant.
As I pointed out above.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]


On a very basic level it's like trying to play the same game up pickup sticks twice to show a comparison.
Has anyone ever thought that maybe there was shodding building going on at the WTC's ?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
building codes for steel structurals follow a srict protocall

Let me help you rephrase that.
Building codes for steel structures follow a strict protocol HOWEVER, many people don't follow those protocols.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
How do you know this and what is the cutoff point for damage that would or wouldn't cause the collapse?

No they don't. You keep taking them out of context. Read the NIST final report to get the official cause, don't use news reports.

Please post this info.


1. Well the (9/11 commission) official story reports that the damage in the South tower was not as severe as the North tower.

Also of you look at the videos and photos you can see how the plane went through the building.

2. I use verified facts and evidence to show that the buildings did withstand the buildings imapacts, even prior NIST reports stated this.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.


wtc.nist.gov...

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.




[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by plasmacutter
when his buildings should have also collapsed u agree ??

or did thermo dynamics skip that day(9/11)


Funny how no one will talk about the 1975 fire that burned for 3 hours in the North tower and casued no damage to the steel.

But we are supposed to believe that a fire on 9/11 that burned less then an hour was enough to cause a complete collapse.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]


You keep ignoring the fact that a plane didn't hit that building in 1975. Nobody is saying that the fire alone caused the collapse. Well nobody except you. Stop putting words into peoples mouths.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by space cadet
The buildings collasped due to the amount of damage sustained by the impact of the planes and the explosions that occurred upon impact.



What damage casued by the planes?
The massive structural damage caused by the plane impacts. That damage is what space cadet is probably referring to. Look at the Purdue University animation and maybe that will help.


I have shown reports that the buildings withstood the planes impacts.

You posted an early news report. And we know how accurate the news is right?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
reply to post by space cadet
 


u do realize it was a lattice structure right?

and that the hole made by the plane may have cause damage but if it was going to be from the plane impact it would have fall shortly there after


read some past post please we went over this


that hole was like punching a hole in a screen

dose your screen colapse?

No u just now have a screen with a hole in it

the building enginere of the WTC center already stated they could have taken multible hits

steel latice structures are redundant (they sread the load very very efficently


The screen would indeed collapse if it required structural beams and posts for support which were subsequently removed by the "punch". Maybe not initially but it would eventually.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
Do people even realize at the hieght the buildings where

the amount of wind shere force that was up there

they where 200 feet wide on all side

Imagine the wind load on it everday of the week

JUST WOW


There's a difference between a wind load which would be applied against an entire side of the building as opposed to a force applied to a small point on the building.
For example
If someone were to push against you with a piece of 4 ft x 4 ft plywood, using say, 50 lbs of force, what would happen?

Now lets say someone pushes against you with a sharp knife with that same 50 lbs of force? Now what would happen?




top topics



 
10
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join