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.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by adam_zapple
That depends on how fast the mass is moving, and how much of it there is. 3,000 sticks of dynamite can do quite a bit of damage...do you think that much dynamite could get rid of the first set of columns and also destroy some core columns?
LOL obviously.
Dynamite? Who cares? What if it could destroy it? Again you’re missing the fact that it would still NOT become a global collapse.
And if you’re trying to say that proves the plane could do it, try again, and this time include the loss of momentum from hitting the buildings façade.
Originally posted by ANOK
It didn't...or the buildings would have fallen immediately when the planes hit.
Well I'm glad you realise this. So you admit, as do NIST, that the planes impact had no significant effect on the buildings integrity?
www.911proof.com...
The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.
Originally posted by ANOK
Gravity...and it didn't "create energy"..the energy was already there in the form of potential energy (like a roller coaster at the top of a hill).
LOL you have no idea what energy is do you? You think energy is a physical thing don't you? Potential energy is only present when an object is under stress, and a release of that stress changes the potential energy in kinetic energy.
Originally posted by ANOK
Your roller coaster doesn't have thousands of tons of steel between it and the bottom of the hill.
Originally posted by ANOK
Why do you folks keep ignoring all that steel, bolted and welded together, that had ZERO damage? You seem to think that gravity can somehow make all that mysteriously disappear?
Originally posted by ANOK
Why would the top of the building have enough potential energy stored up to crush itself?
Were there giant bungee chords attaching it to the ground or something lol?
Originally posted by ANOK
So how do you explain it?
Explain what? Why the top defied physics? Well that's what I'd like to know... I can guess... If you missed it go back and re-read, I’m tired of your circle jerks.
Originally posted by ANOK
"No resistance"? Now you're just being ridiculous. It fell slower than free-fall, which would be IMPOSSIBLE without resistance.
Deny, deny, deny....The buildings, all three, experienced at least one period of free fall acceleration, according to NIST. So take it up with them.
Originally posted by ANOK
No. Feel free to do so since you claim to know the physics.
LOL that was a rhetoric question, that I knew you wouldn't be able to answer,
Originally posted by ANOK
2 - Because it fell 500-1000 feet and gained a lot of kinetic energy along the way
What did? The pieces of debris, weighing tons were just tossed up by a gravity fed collapse to land 600ft away, and cause other steel columns to completely fail?
Originally posted by ANOK
"loses" is a relative term.
You are a relative term...
Originally posted by ANOK
...and the collision still damages both cars...even if one is made of aluminum and the other made of steel. ;-)
LOL again not the point, you are arguing for complete destruction of BOTH objects.
Originally posted by ANOK
Have you ever seen a crash between an 18 wheeler and a small two seater car, where the car completely destroyed the truck?
Originally posted by pteridine
Since there never was one before, all future collapses must also be due to artificial means.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by pteridine
Since there never was one before, all future collapses must also be due to artificial means.
You are wrong, please show a steel framed building that symmetrically collapsed completely, at near free-fall speed, from one hours worth of sporadic office fires.
You can't compare partial collapses over long periods of time with an instant complete symmetrical global collapse that we saw three buildings do on 9/11.
NIST wants you to believe that global collapse was inevitable, how can they make a claim that has no precedence to support it? Not even a psychic could have predicted global collapse
Originally posted by cogburn
reply to post by _BoneZ_
I've said it once and I'll say it again...
There are 3.5 billion reasons why history never records the first steel frame building collapse in history.
If it really was the first steel frame building collapse in history, it was not built to the specifications claimed on the insurance contract and as a result that contract never would have paid.
Saying such things without sufficiently vetting the science of the event is tantamount to participating in revisionist history.
[edit on 26-1-2009 by cogburn]
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by apacheman
It is not a matter of incompetance. It is a matter of unpreparedness. We did not train for, nor did we ever prepare for intercepting hostile aircraft within our own airspace. And when our fighters did launch, they followed SOP to the letter, they proceeded to their ADIZ intercept points which were located offshore. Everyone likes to mention Payne Stewart like there is some sort of comparision to be made, when there really isnt. The four airliners on 9/11 turned off their transponders, which made them just one more blip on a screen filled with them, in addition, they left their respective altitudes to make detection that much harder. Payne's IFF remained on, his aircraft at altitude and it STILL took an hour to get F-16s into a position to intercept. I am still not sure where you get this idea that there was this large amount of time available to intercept these planes.
If you believe our military was so incompetent as to be unable to intercept a single one of those airliners with all the time they had, then you've obviously never served
Then the cute part...its "obvious" I have never served and you ask for my credentials.
I currently have 21 years in as a member of the United States military, split between the Navy and the Air Force.
Intercept Mission at NEADS: 1) Hijack: Prior to September 11,2001 (9/11) the hijack response mission at NEADS directed a fighter trail be established to ensure the air route safety of the hijacked flight. According to Marr, in the September 14th, 1993 Lufthansa Airbus A320-111 crash it took a number of hours for the "channels" to conduct the proper requests from both the NEADS and civilian agencies. It took over six hours to gain an initial tail on this occasion. Marr further commented that initially the White House did not want NEADS to interfere with the event, but then decided that there could be a role. [bold]Marr noted he participated once with a live exercise for a hijack headed north from St. Louis in the south.[/bold] They attempted to scramble aircraft internally in this exercise, and Marr commented that it did not work very well. The lesson from this scramble exercise was that it is easier to tum a fighter around immediately after take off than have to take the time to position a fighter for takeoff in the direction of its target. 2) Counter-drug and Air Sovereignty COMMISSION SENSITIVE UNCLASSIFIED COMMISSION SENSITIVE UNCLASSIFIED NEADS conducts counter-drug and air sovereignty missions, but Marr commented that the majority of the counter-drug operations take place at SEADS (Souteast Air Defense Sector). 3) Search and Rescue Most of the intercept operations at NEADS involve Search and Rescue operations.Source: 9/11 Commission Memoradum
Originally posted by cogburn
Saying such things without sufficiently vetting the science of the event is tantamount to participating in revisionist history.
Originally posted by pteridine
Your obvious lack of an open mind coupled with your faulty logic are limiting.
Originally posted by pteridine
Demo companies do not demolish buildings anywhere near the size of WTC 1 & 2 so there is no basis of comparison.
Originally posted by pteridine
Since there never was one before, all future collapses must also be due to artificial means
Originally posted by pteridine
Steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire
Originally posted by adam_zapple
It was also the first time in history that 757s slammed into 110 story skyscrapers at high speed.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The science of the event, along with the video evidence, physical evidence, the witness testimony, all support the demolition of the WTC towers with explosives. And saying anything else is to deny all available evidence.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Wow, we're just making things up as we go now, huh? Size is irrelevant. Controlled demo concept works the same way no matter the shape or size of a building.
Originally posted by pteridine
Since there never was one before, all future collapses must also be due to artificial means
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by pteridine
Steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire
All kinds of buildings have partially collapsed due to fires. But never a steel-structured highrise, and never fully and completely as seen only in controlled demolitions.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by adam_zapple
It was also the first time in history that 757s slammed into 110 story skyscrapers at high speed.
That's irrelevant considering the fact the buildings were designed to withstand the impacts of jetliners and probably multiple jetliners.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Demo companies wire buildings from top to bottom and it wouldn't matter if a jetliner destroyed a few floors or a demo company destroyed a few floors, if the rest of the building wasn't wired, there would only be a local collapse of the damaged section only.
Originally posted by adam_zapple
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Demo companies wire buildings from top to bottom and it wouldn't matter if a jetliner destroyed a few floors or a demo company destroyed a few floors, if the rest of the building wasn't wired, there would only be a local collapse of the damaged section only.
Argument from personal belief.
You are wrong, please show a steel framed building that symmetrically collapsed completely, at near free-fall speed, from one hours worth of sporadic office fires.