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.

 

Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...

page: 16
2
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
First, there is no assumption. There are videos and pictures to prove this happened.


Where? Please provide what you think proves this.

There was not symmetrical collapse. This is incorrect. Once again you are applying what you think happened.

Do you know what asymmetrical means? All three buildings fell symmetrically and your refusal to see this just shows how lost you are.


The force that caused the momentum to continue was the loss of support by the lower floors based on the structural design.


Huh? Since when have buildings been designed so that they would fail so easily? That's just STUPID!


Just so I know, it may help me to understand your train of thought. What do you do for a living. Not the company, just a title....


What has that got to do with anything. I don't work, I don't have a 'title'.
What difference does it make? The world is full of educated fools.




posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


PPPSSSTTT yo yo !!

any answers to these questions ??

i just want to not be confused at all



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


Then why did the top of WTC 2 start to tip over? And then mysteriously lose it's angular momentum? Where is the explanation for that?


It lost vertical support on one side prior to losing it on the other side (read: NOT SYMMETRICAL). Any angular momentum it had was absorbed by the rest of the collapse.

Or do you think somehow they had explosives that magically kept that top piece from tipping?


Originally posted by ANOK
And where is the explanation of WTC 7, who's debris DID land in it's own footprint and DID collapse from the bottom like a conventional demo?


Not WTC7...it spilled out into the street and damaged the building across from it.


Originally posted by ANOK
It has always been our claim that the towers were NOT a conventional controlled demolition. So any claims that it could not have been demolished on purpose, because it was not a conventional collapse, are garbage. The towers were not a conventional demolition, WTC 7 was.


It didn't sound "conventional" at all.


Originally posted by ANOK
Where is the PHYSICS in that paper that explain the change of 'angular momentum' in WTC 2, or the lack of Resistance in all 3 collapses.


YOU are the one claiming there was a "lack of resistance".


Originally posted by ANOK
It talks about the debris that was seen that had hit WTC 7, AND OTHER BUILDINGS, so I ask again how does ASYMMETRICAL damage become a SYMMETRICAL global collapse? Why was WTC 7 the ONLY building to globally collapse after being hit be debris from the towers?


Were all of the damaged buildings damaged equally?
Were all of the damaged buildings constructed equally?

If your answer to either question is no, then it should not surprise you that the results of different damage on different buildings would be.......different.


Originally posted by ANOK
You like that paper because it says what YOU want to hear, those of us who are not blinded by hollywood science can clearly see it explains NOTHING. In fact it contradicts itself in its reasoning.

But I can clearly see why you would want to believe it explains everything, so you don't have to THINK for yourself. You should try it sometime, but then again maybe you have vested interests in supporting the official story?


I don't suggest that this paper explains everything...but it's written by people who do CD for a living...it's not an anonymous opinion of someone on a message board, which is all you have provided.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Once again ALUMINIUM and STEEL, I don't care who says what, ALUMINIUM cannot cause STEEL to fail.


Do you think that a 757 going 400mph couldn't damage a steel beam?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by lycopersicum
reply to post by pteridine
 


1 ok for one do you realize how utterly foolish you sound ?

2 have you even read the laws of physics or thermal dynamics ??

if you truely have read it you wouldnt have made this post

here ill make it real easy for you. try reading it for a change
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

you can not have it both ways you cant have the plane slice through the steel then bounce back .
where did this majical energy come from ??

this is what you said

"When objects collide there is equal force but unequal backward acceleration. The larger mass has the LEAST backwards acceleration. Equal and opposite forces that govern all collisions between objects. Unequal mass, unequal acceleration. "

REALLY ???? are you really serious i mean really??
with the law is right there you are going to say somthing so ridiculous as that ?? you are spitting nothing but BS out the side of your neck. dude just read the law man your making stuff up agin. unequal mass dosnt matter agin read the law
www.grc.nasa.gov...

READ the frigging laws dude for goodness sake, you sound like a fool

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

where did the majical energy that stoped the top of the building from continueing on its path??
show us with facts from scientific data that says objects in motion will change course with no other force applied????



[edit on 22-1-2009 by lycopersicum]


Lyco,
Interestingly, the quote you attribute to me was Anok's. As many on this thread have noticed, technical things are not his strong point and to answer your question, no, he doesn't know how foolish he sounds. By the way, "magical" is the correct spelling.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
*Snip*

It sucks that this is how these conversations always end. This thread was not about symmetrical/asymmetrical collapse but to try to wrap my head around the CD theorists.

I wanted to know where the evidence is. As far as your scientific method, how about we apply it to explosives used in WTC 7.

Scientific method, remember high school? This was in my physics, chem and bio classes in college too.

Characterizations - Did the WTC 7 fall due to a normal CD implosion initiated by the US government?

Your Hypotheses- Black op forces weeks prior to 9/11 planted standard, not exotic, materials to bring down WTC 7 at a specific time

The Prediction - When tested, components related to CD found at collapse site will US involvement

Conduct Experiments - Sorry, you have no evidence to support and test your theory.

So there we have it. Does this not fit?

Mod Edit: Removed Snide Commentary, Review this Link: Announcement: Civility & Decorum are Expected

[edit on 1/22/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by pteridine
 


Please, you don't know what you're talking about.

Please provide evidence of the planes shearing columns. For petes sake I have spent this whole thread trying to explain to you how this scenario is impossible. That is one of the NIST assumptions I talked about earlier (maybe another thread, but you were their too).

But instead of researching this for yourself, you continue to appeal to authority. Authority with a vested interest in supporting the official story.

Once again ALUMINIUM and STEEL, I don't care who says what, ALUMINIUM cannot cause STEEL to fail.

I have even suggested how you can discover this amazing fact for yourself.
Do you know how to use a hammer? Can you find some aluminium? Can you hit the aluminium with your hammer? Cab you make that hammer fail and leave the aluminium intact, if you hit it hard enough? Can you make BOTH fail, if you hit it even harder? Please do yourself a favour and go research this and come back with YOUR answer, not some bogus paper you find on the web that you think explains it.

Do that and then we'll debate some more...


Anok, the evidence of the planes shearing the columns is apparent in the same videos that you use to make your case. The planes arrive, there is a collision and a fireball, and the columns can be seen to have been cut. There are big holes in the building. Even someone like you, with a complete lack of any technical skills and limited experience, can at least see the video.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 

There may be some columns that were cut from the 100,000+ pound object slamming through them, but most of the columns were removed from their plates/welds that hold them together.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Anok, the evidence of the planes shearing the columns is apparent in the same videos that you use to make your case.



Actually, they mostly sheared at the bolted connections.

Find a clear, closeup photo and see it for yourself.

The missing areas very closely match the pattern of individual column trees.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz


Actually, they mostly sheared at the bolted connections.

Find a clear, closeup photo and see it for yourself.

The missing areas very closely match the pattern of individual column trees.

Yes, the columns mostly failed at the joints, but the columns failed.
Are you saying that had they been one piece columns, they would not have failed?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
The missing areas very closely match the pattern of individual column trees.

This is correct.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Yes, the columns mostly failed at the joints, but the columns failed.
Are you saying that had they been one piece columns, they would not have failed?


Nope.

I have no idea where they would have failed, or if at all.

I'd imagine that there would have been LESS damage near the wing tips, where the fuel weight contributed. Prolly wouldn't have mattered much closer to the center though, and for the engines, wing root, landing gear, etc.

But if they had been welded like the core columns, they prolly would have broken at the welds also.

Also, keep in mind that it's not necessary for the skin of the plane, or the nose, to have cut through the columns. They could have simply "flowed" around them and through the windows until something more substantial contacted them. The video resolution can't resolve if that happened or not though.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
There are a few points to consider

The joints that connected the outer columns to the inner structure/columns were weakened considerably and finally pooped. You can see the inward bowing in this photograph.




You can see the inward bowing of WTC 2.

As far as aluminum hitting steel, look at this picture and how far parts of the plane hitting WTC 2 went



and this does not look like it feel straight down but toppled....this is not good CD work




and this looks like toppling, not a initated collapse from below....




Where is that evidence?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

Seymour,
You said: "I have no idea where they would have failed, or if at all.

I'd imagine that there would have been LESS damage near the wing tips, where the fuel weight contributed. Prolly wouldn't have mattered much closer to the center though, and for the engines, wing root, landing gear, etc.

But if they had been welded like the core columns, they prolly would have broken at the welds also.

Also, keep in mind that it's not necessary for the skin of the plane, or the nose, to have cut through the columns. They could have simply "flowed" around them and through the windows until something more substantial contacted them. The video resolution can't resolve if that happened or not though."

I agree. The sectional densities of the various aircraft components and their rigidities would have determined the extent of column damage. At those velocities, it would be expected that damage would be delayed until structural components of the airframe struck the supports. Engines and landing gear should have been of such density and rigidity to penetrate further than the airframe.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Do you think that a 757 going 400mph couldn't damage a steel beam?


Do you think a steel beam will fail before a weld in shear?

Think about what I'm saying before you try and tell me an aluminum composite plane wins the battle of inches thick steel.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Do you think that a continuous beam would not have been sheared by the aircraft?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


i say it agin this is what steel dose to aluminum when they meet

watch the clip it says everything and it is a small beam mind you only 13,000 pounds

img187.imageshack.us...
www.stylofilms.com...
www.stylofilms.com...



[edit on 22-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zappleDo you think that a 757 going 400mph couldn't damage a steel beam?


Duuuuude, are you paying ANY attention?

Isn't that what we've been discussing for how many pages?

It's no wonder you don't understand the physics, you don't seem to even understand this thread.

Your answer, NO.

Now go back through the thread to find out why. Don't skip the posts not addressed to you. Are you here to learn, or just argue and disagree?

I mean seriously bro, how can you ask that question?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

It lost vertical support on one side prior to losing it on the other side (read: NOT SYMMETRICAL). Any angular momentum it had was absorbed by the rest of the collapse.

What? I don't even know where you pulled that from, but it doesn't let light in.

How does that explain how the tower collapsed from underneath the top? You are just making wild guesses my friend that are not even based on any known physics.


Or do you think somehow they had explosives that magically kept that top piece from tipping?


Huh? Again you're not making sense and are not understanding what is going on. The only way an object that is under angular momentum can change it's motion is if an outside force acted on it. The top itself cannot be that external force. So as there is no external force acting on that top section, UNLESS there were explosives, then there is no reason for it to not continue it's path. Now if there were explosives then it explains why the bottom collapsed from under the top section causing it to not have any pivot point anymore to rest on. If it was the top section causing the collapse then it would have still continued it angular momentum no matter how much damage it was causing. Resistance would always play a part because there was no free-fall of the top section like you want to believe.



Not WTC7...it spilled out into the street and damaged the building across from it.


So what? Not all demolitions are 100% perfect, WTC 7 was a about perfect ANY controlled demolition could ever be.

If you believe this is not in its own footprint, you have no idea what a demolition looks like...




new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join