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.

 

Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

page: 26
59
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Yeah, instead of spending the money on dismantling old military aircraft, we could sell the outdated aircraft to demolition companies to take down buildings. They would need to make sure that all cloth and paper items are removed from the planes before the flight because they would surely survive (passports and bandanas).




posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy

No there is evidence all around us that they didn't have the intellect to pull of a conspiracy of this nature.

Once again, you're not reading what I'm writing. Did I mention holograms in the above example? NO I did not. My example had nothing to do with the holonut hypothesis.

NOT ONE TIME DID I MENTION HOLOGRAMS IN MY ABOVE EXAMPLE.

The irony here is that I AM the objective observer
I don't have a side except the truth.




So they didn't have the 'intellect'!! Who are "they" you're referring too??

They same people I've been referring to in the conversation. The bush administration.


There's something extremely disingenuous about you, jfj123!

There's something self righteous about you djeminy


Why don't you tell us that you spend half of 2008 debating holograms and 3-D imaging? Or to be fair - at least many months?

I assume what you're asking is why have I spent time debating whether or not holograms were used on 9/11??? If that is what you're asking, here is your answers
1. Deny ignorance
2. Why are you spending time debating me?


Why do you call people "holonut", and by implication, 'idiots, dumb-asses, fools,
tin foil hat loonies etc. etc. for questioning this technology?

Because frankly, IN MY OPINION, anyone who believes holographic planes struck the WTC's and pentagon is "nuts". Is that clear enough for you? Since it sounds as if you've been stalking me through various threads for awhile, it should be pretty obvious that I know what I'm talking about regarding the technology.


And who, obviously, after not receiving any answers, embark on natural speculations as to why no answers are forthcoming!
Why is this called "Holonut hyphotesis" by you?

Read above for details.


The facts, the absolute facts are, that DARPA according to their budget papers would
have spend millions upon millions of dollars developing this new technology all through
the nineties and well into the next century.

Really? Go ahead and post that info then. And I'm not talking about hypothetical, pie in the sky programs, I'm talking about real tech.


The undisputed facts are that Japan, amongst others, is very advanced in their
knowledge about this technology, and no reason exist to doubt that USA likewise would
be equally advanced. Especially if one should take DARPA's budget papers into account.

Once again, go ahead and post the actual tech it would take to do that. Not bits and pieces of tech that could one day, maybe do it.


The absolute facts are, that in any investigation no stone should be left unturned.
Anything worth looking at should be analyzed, probed and investigated for probable
clues before it either be discarded as useless, or retained as possible useful evidence.

So we must investigate EVERY remote possibility? That means we would be investigating indefinitely.


This is not what is happening with hologram technology and 3-D imaging.
This is rejected as fairy-tale stuff, and only fit for loonies and dumb-wits!

YES.


The people who promulgate and promote this insane approach seems to be totally
ignorant of the fact that whatever you send out will sooner or later return to the
originator. The 'boomerang effect' is inevitable. It never fails.

Have no idea what this is supposed to mean ?????


So the people who want to know, who are curious, who ask questions, who seeks
answers, who speculate as to why no answers are given; or in short, those who seek
the truth, are the idiots!

Nope just the one's who think holographic planes slammed into the WTC's and pentagon.


And those who want the truth to be concealed, by all devious and nasty means, by
name-calling, ridicule and the like, want to be considered the intelligent and clever
ones???

HUH?


Gives us a break for heavens sake!

These people are the true idiots, because they cannot even grasp the bleeding obvious:
That the more they tell people there's nothing behind the thick hedge to bother about,
the more people would want to look for themselves whether this is true or not.

Good for you. You shouldn't let anyone dissuade you. If you want to continue looking into 9/11 please, by all means do so.


Sooner or later the truth, whatever it is, will be revealed.

Correct.


So why are the true dummies doing this? What is it they don't want us to know about?

Wait, who are the dummies supposed to be? I lost track.


What are they trying to hide?

uh...don't understand what side you're talking about?


Could this really be the "hot potato"??

What could be the hot potato? Seriously I have no idea where you're going with this or what some of these questions even mean????


Naturally, that should be one of the first things coming into mind, shouldn't it!!

Really!!

Honestly!!

Seriously!!

[edit on 15-2-2009 by djeminy]

I don't know what should be one of the first things???? Could you please rephrase your questions?? I seriously don't understand where what you're talking about.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 



These programs will also explore a combination of microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based electro-optic spatial light modulators in combination with very short pulse solid state lasers to provide powerful new capabilities for secure communication up-links (multi-gigabits per second), aberration free 3-dimensional imaging and targeting at very long ranges (> 1000 kilometers). Lastly, innovative design concepts and system integration of MEMS-based spatial light modulators (SLMs), that provide a quantum leap in wavefront control, photonics and high speed electronics, will be explored for an affordable and high value communications, image sensing and targeting system for use well into the 21st century."


Please tell me exactly what technologies, citing exmaple, these system design improvements are referring to?
And please post a source.

I anxiously await your answer.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by djeminy
 

I actually agree with you. I've seen video of a holographic person walk out on stage and address an audience with no one suspecting anything until he ended his speech and suddenly disappeared! I have no doubt the U.S. military possesses holographic technology that's sophisticated enough to fool anyone.

What I object to are the debunkers constantly using this to ridicule the entire 9/11 truth movement. Just because holographic technology was possible doesn't mean it was used during 9/11. Until someone can provide some real solid evidence that it was employed, I think the whole discussion is counterproductive. It's much more effective to emphasize what can be proven, e.g. the numerous secondary explosions heard before the towers collapsed, squibs and free-falls of WTC 1 and 2, molten metal and >2000 degree temps under the WTC rubble, the demolition of WTC 7, 9/11 insider stock trading, hijackers who are still alive, the many Pentagon anomalies, etc., etc., etc.


That was my point earlier in response to another poster. My point was that these fringe people making real wild claims, make everyone think that all people involved in the 9/11 truth movement are nuts when in actuality, they are just people who are looking for the truth which is not a bad thing.

I knew it wouldn't take too long before someone would pop up and yell holograms. Holograms were not used in 9/11. I've seen many impressive 3-d effects, which are typically called holograms but in actuality, are not.

1. There is no evidence to suggest that holograms were capable of being used in 9/11.
2. There is no evidence to suggest that they were used in 9/11.

by the way, here's a great 3-d video of kate moss



[edit on 16-2-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

1. They same people I've been referring to in the conversation. The bush
administration.

2. Because frankly, IN MY OPINION, anyone who believes holographic planes struck the WTC's and pentagon is "nuts". Is that clear enough for you? Since it sounds as if you've been stalking me through various threads for awhile, it should be pretty obvious that I know what I'm talking about regarding the technology.

3. So we must investigate EVERY remote possibility? That means we would be investigating indefinitely.

4. Have no idea what this is supposed to mean ?????

5. HUH?

6. Wait, who are the dummies supposed to be? I lost track.

7. uh...don't understand what side you're talking about?

8. What could be the hot potato? Seriously I have no idea where you're going with this or what some of these questions even mean????

9. I don't know what should be one of the first things???? Could you please rephrase your questions?? I seriously don't understand where what you're talking about.



1. What! The whole lot of them without exception!

2. Stalking you??? You must be suffering from some kind of 'delusion of grandeur',
then!

3. Actually I wrote, "Anything WORTH looking at should be analyzed,....".
You still got problems with this 'honesty' thing, it seems.

4. I'm not surprised. Your dad would probably know what a 'boomerang' is, and what it
signifies. Ask him.

5. "Huh", what?

6. Look in the mirror.

7. As above.

8. This is becoming abundantly clear.

9. As above.

Sorry I can't help you any further.

I had expected a little more acumen from you, but I'm not really that surprised about
how little, it seems, you actually understand!



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
If a plane had flown into the Beijing hotel and it still didn't collapse, people would say that it was the wrong kind.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123


I knew it wouldn't take too long before someone would pop up and yell holograms. Holograms were not used in 9/11. I've seen many impressive 3-d effects, which are typically called holograms but in actuality, are not.

1. There is no evidence to suggest that holograms were capable of being used in 9/11.
2. There is no evidence to suggest that they were used in 9/11.




1. There's no evidence to suggest that holograms were NOT capable of being used on 9/11.

2. There is certainly evidence to suggest that they could have been used on 9/11.


The port-side engine on a 757 would have hit the same floor the woman is standing on,
who are visible on all close-up photos of the alleged impact hole. And of course it would also have hit the steel plate the floor is connected to, as can clearly be seen on the Purdue photo.

Note that the engine hangs under the wing!

one may even speculate that the alleged contours of the wings on the building, could
have been made by sophisticated laser technology, calibrated to hit and cut the exact
predetermined area simultaneously with a bomb of some unknown kind going off at
almost the same moment, but a fraction earlier.
Superimposed on this scenario, a high tech 3-D image of a plane becomes visible in
the sky and 'glides' toward the tower, penetrating the building at the predetermined
spot, after which the explosions take place and the laser cut be performed.

On the roof of an adjoining building, a high tech volume speaker system is used to mimic the sound of a 757 jet engine, and the deception is complete.

This of course is but pure speculation at this point, but please bear in mind that no
evidence exist to suggest that it couldn't possibly have happened in this way.

Actually, it could have happened like this. The weird way the observed plane
penetrated the building, could give an indication in that direction.

Lets find out one way or the other!



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Seymour, I appreciate the dialog not beginning sentences with things like; "Any fool must know" and stuff like that. Assuming that the other side has a reason to think their claims are valid is the only way to have a discussion. So thanks.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- you have this bassackwards. If the building collapses, by whatever means, the descending parts will strip off floors, even in the core area. But the upper block is more than 30-40 ft, so AFTER the floors are gone, there's still more building coming down. THIS is where columns are buckled, etc.


Well, If the descending parts are pulling down the floors -- that would mean the curtain wall. The curtain wall doesn't lose strength, until it loses the cantilever of the flooring that is pushing it out. The floor HAS TO, go first, if we accept the pancake theory -- or even a "house of cards" theory (sorry, I don't have a better name -- it's basically where outward pressure holds a structure together -- kind of like a popsicle stick design that doesn't use glue).

The columns, should be preventing the buckling in the first place. Unless they were cut. The whole "buckling due to heat" is nonsense. Because the floor underneath certainly isn't getting hot. So even if the curtain wall implodes and you lose outward pressure on the curtain wall on one floor -- this WOULD collapse floors above it -- it doesn't collapse the lower floors.

I'd have to see some animation to get what you are trying to say -- because so far it doesn't make sense. From just the geometry, the building must have undergone pancake collapse at that point -- and that means transferring energy from one floor to the next by the floors above slamming down. That isn't what I saw when it was this free-fall collapse. The dust barely had time to obscure the floor below before it caved. Yes, I saw some floors buckling in that other video -- not sure of source. But that "CAN'T HAPPEN" if there are I-Beams. The floors would be pushed down evenly, because the transfer of force would be distributed, and the floors below haven't undergone any distortion until hit.

It's obvious that the floors are pulling down on the curtain wall, because the buckling is happening before the curtain wall gets pulled inward -- about one story above. The floors cannot buckle yet, because the curtain wall has not released the inward pressure. There is no fantasy way I can believe the core preceded this, unless someone destroyed it at the base of the tower.

The inward buckling of the curtain wall and everything we saw-- including the core going first, is EXACTLY what we would see with a demolition-- and they would have pre-weakened and put shaped charges on the last few floor supports so that THEY COULD BUCKLE. Add in all I said about the criminal behavior of the Bush administration and their later plans when you think about the chances of both. There is MORE THAN ENOUGH evidence, to put this to a trial in my book -- nothing can really be solved with dueling internet links.



2- true, but the welds need to be to full depth of the columns to be AS STRONG, the connection can never be stronger. I've only seen examples of them being welded to ~ 1/2 depth. This would mean that it would only be 1/2 as resistant to side impacts as the columns. Follow me here - The cores were 36-42 ksi steel, and they used 7018 rods, which is 70 ksi. So some will say that this means the weld is ~ 2x as strong as the welded material. This is wrong when you really think about it. What you are confusing is that the BEAD material may be ~ 2x as strong, but the connection is not. This is cuz when the weld transitions from the BEAD to the column, the column is again only 36-42 ksi steel. And if it is indeed only welded to ~ 1/2 depth, then the connection is weaker. The strength of the welding rod cannot make the connection stronger than the column, just as using stronger bolts to connect 2 parts together cannot prevent the assembly from failing if the failure is not at the connection. Hope you can understand that.


>> Again, a good investigation could prove one way or the other -- 1/2 of the way vs. all the way. It still means that for 100+ feet, you've got a solid tube -- so there isn't enough force to bring it down without resistance and you'd see the core sticking up at least at the base -- most of the core should have broken into very large chunks and stuck out through the top. The ROD used to weld the joints isn't the issue -- in arc welding, you are re-heating the seams to a higher temperature than they were formed, and the weld is fusing with that. According to my brother, who is a very gifted welder (and can tell you, a lot of welds are shoddy), welds ARE stronger than the original steel -- if done right.



3- I think the term is axial buckling. This happens when straight down forces are applied that are beyond the strength of the columns.

Um, I'm imagining a bunch of metal tubes, which held the entire building for years. You don't have more downward force on the core when it is collapsing. You actually would have less for parts in free-fall, and more due to collision of falling debris -- so a tiny bit more, but not a good enough percentage of the weight of the building in the top 20% that came crashing down. 2x Load tolerance at least, if not 3x.

Straight down force would not have destroyed the core -- not in this Universe at least. And multiple tubes prevent buckling. And of course, if they were in 3 welds -- that means you have a long pipe that has to break in the middle. I could imagine this if it were sheer force from the flooring -- but everything is basically falling at once.



4- correct. But what happens is you now have an unbraced column that is more prone to buckling, or breaking welds from side impacts. This is the point you're not seeing.


No. I'm not saying a building crashing down can't BEND and tear the steel (break, unless embedded in concrete is less likely). But it would offer resistance.

In my opinion, the demolition crew made a huge mistake -- they should have destroyed it, without going for a PURE demolition. The "falling at free-fall speed" makes the whole think look bogus. We might never have figured this out otherwise.



5- it? The floors were knocked off by the descending columns


Is the Core what you are calling columns, or is that the vertical i-Beams? I'm not aware of columns. But I w



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 


Look. One might assume that you are trying to make Truthers look bad. Whether or not holograms or a-bombs or whatever was used, the burden of proof seems to have been put on the people who want justice -- not the guilty in this country.

We have to prove leaders 95% guilty BEFORE we can get a trial.

No matter the validity or possibility of your claim, you should only be arguing things that can be stone, cold proven. The anti-Truth crowd which thinks we should not investigate the Bush administration (because that is all their argument really comes down to), will be pointing at each incorrect application of Big Foot or Chewbacca, and then with a broad brush, paint EVERY truther argument as being silly.

The rabble is driven by the nonsense.

During the huge and numerous protests during the Bush administration, the Media might show a small straggling group of 500 if they bothered to cover it at all. As a bonus, if someone were wearing a Pink tutu, while the rest were in business suits -- guess who got the interview?

What I'm saying is; don't be THAT GUY in the pink tutu.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to djeminy
 


Actually, you'd be more like the hired stone thrower. The provocateur.

I'm sure in the future, I will have to debate an anti-truther saying; "Truthers think that it was done with holograms -- LOL."

It isn't the strength of the strongest argument used, it is pointing to the weakest argument. This is the difference between reason and propaganda.

If you think that Truthers are idiots and fools -- you might be thinking about someone much like yourself, helping to throw rocks and make the protest look like a riot.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by VitriolAndAngst]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
[QUOTE]Source, please [/QUOTE]
Google it yourself, I cant' turn this into a book. It takes enough time just pointing out the logic errors and rebutting your misused logical fallacy assertions -- as I will point out again below.


Your "rebuttals" of my logical fallacy assertions merely show that you don't understand that you've committed these fallacies.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Only our government could have covered up the fact that explosives were used in the investigation of the ruins.


Argument from personal belief [/QUOTE]
If demolition charges were used, There would be evidence. Did Bin Laden or the Saudis conduct the investigation and cleanup of ground Zero? Did they clean up and re-sod the lawn at the Pentagon?

Do I need to link to WHO CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION.

It's pretty hard to cover up explosives -- but if you ship all the steel in the building to China and recycle it immediately, when there was a hire bidder for the scrap in New Jersey -- well, that would do it.


Except that all of the rescue workers and cleanup workers would have seen the evidence...as would all of the people searching the rubble for remains. Thousands of people saw the debris before it was shipped off.


Originally posted by VitriolAndAngstErgo, either it fell due to fire, or it fell due to demolition.


False dilemma. [/QUOTE]


OK, you come up with another possibility. YOU say it fell by fire, I say by demolition. Do I hear anyone for termites?


Combination of impact damage AND fires. Thus, your choice between fire & demolition is a false dilemma.



Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst I don't re-research every claim I make because that is tedious.


?? Don't make claims if you haven't bothered to even check their validity...no wonder you believe what you do, you haven't done the research like I have. I see no reason for me to continue to waste time on you if you can't even be bothered to research whether your own claims are true or not.

Do your own research and come to your own conclusions...don't just blindly parrot claims made by other people because you want to believe what they believe or because your hatred for Bush makes you want to blame 9/11 on him.



[edit on 16-2-2009 by adam_zapple]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

1- it's not ME saying that fires get that hot, etc. It's fire engineers saying that. I'll take their expertise over your statements.

2- but professional fire engineers - not just me
- say that these is a reasonable expectation

3- she later jumped. What do you think that says about how hot it was?

4- wrong. These are all middle of the road estimates. The TM, OTOH, uses minimum temps and highest tolerances.

5- no, it didn't. It fell at about 40% slower than freefall acceleration.

6- I gave you a quote for how only 250C is needed over a period of 1 hour to expect collapse. Read the NIST report, it talks about creep buckling of the cores. This is another name for buckling that takes into account longer time periods.

7- or tipping.

8- kinda like this? Lower left of the core - is it opening up like a flower? concretecore.741.com...

9- what does this mean? Do you recognize then that I'm not just making stuffup, and that I have been quoting engineers?


1. I'm also quoting engineers. Most of what I look at is data from pre-911 sites. Before some figures seem to have gotten changed to make steel look weaker. If 250C for an hour would cause steel to collapse -- then we'd have seen it in incidents not just at the WTC. For instance; was the Chinese fire cooler or hotter for longer periods of time for instance? There is only about 15 minutes of Kerosene fire to make it any hotter than the normal office.

I could see that the curtain walls and bolts might be damaged enough to break at least where the fire was -- even though it doesn't look even as hot as the fire in China. But there was nothing to get the core hot enough and definitely, nothing to weaken it below the crash impact.

2. Big Tobacco spent a lot of money and used a lot of intimidation to get MOST of the lung doctors to say that it wasn't clear that nicotine caused lung cancer. Not saying that ALL of the engineers are under that spell -- just that MOST of the country, of normally rational folks, seems to be under a spell where they think what they are told.

There is no evidence that lower taxes, actually increase revenues. The GDP grows every year regardless of who is in office -- mostly because we have fractional reserve banking, and we run on a treadmill of debt. So, until the economy implodes, the government brings in more revenue -- even though each year it is worth less. But still, many people still believe this fiction -- including economists and accountants.

Reagan raised taxes the most in history on the middle class -- ever. When he doubled Social Security taxes from 7.5 to 14.5% and then capped the total amount paid, so that it was actually less of a burden on the wealthy.

>> And still, much of the country is under the illusion that he lowered taxes. He gave with one hand and robbed with the other.

Everything most people know is wrong and it also happens to the experts.

According to people who DON'T believe there is global warming, a lot of Climate Scientists are fools or got into science so they could lie a bit and increase their funding.

Thousands of scientists.

Isn't it funny, that the people who think that we could get 20,000 climatologists to lie about Global Warming, are the same people who think it preposterous that a handful of engineers might be misled to make an assumption about the WTC?

>> The people in suits on TV talk, and we think we made up our own mind.
I'll pick this up again with point 4.

3. If it is hot enough to be reducing the strength of steel -- then 10' away, much less in the same room above the fire even 30' away, it wouldn't be someone standing there, peering out to decide between being burned alive and jumping -- it would be someone screaming in pain because their skin was burning off. It would be as hot as an oven --and people cannot stand around and look over a ledge in that kind of heat -- your eyes can't even work.

4-5. The NIST may be giving out faulty data. They just recently admitted that Building 7 fell at Free-fall speed. Maybe you might have missed that on ATS? NIST officially admits freefall speed

The WTC did not fall at 40% slower than gravity, it fell in about 8 seconds--I can look at the video and count. The other question is; If the NIST is caught lying to make their case -- how can we really rely on their data. They might not lie on everything -- they may be lying just enough.

I look at the video, just watch the floors collapse and ALMOST keep up with the debris falling next to it. That's almost NO resistance.

6. I don't buy that figure. Just look at the fire in China burning for 20 hours. There was a similar one in Madrid. Two in NY city which involved a military plane and a 707 with the Empire State and some other building. They also had fuel and older and less fire resistant designs. Theoretically, it MIGHT have been hot enough, but when it looks just like a demolition, and every other aspect of the 9.11 investigation was hindered, demonized, and basically covered up (the steel, the videos at the Pentagon, any and all things) -- it means we need to take this to court.

When Truthers, first came out and said that NORAD should have been able to track the planes and that there were bogus training drills being conducted -- we were told to take off our tin-foil-hats. 5 Years later, we get a heavily redacted audio tape, with NORAD personnel totally confused between their drills and the LIVE event.

Once again, here is another "fantasy" that was proven true. How many more of those do we need?

I don't notice trials for the Bush administrations internal spying, torture program, paying for a tax break for the rich with borrowing from China, and lying us into a war (just to name a few) -- do you? All of those were tin-foil-hat theories at first, and now they are facts.

7. I only noticed tipping on the top 20 floors of the North Tower -- but apparently the wind caused all that concrete and steel to be reduced to dust.

8. I just see smoke in that photo. No rose petal of debris.

9. I lumped you in with some annoyance with other stupid anti-truther comments. It's hard when you hit "reply" and lose the copy you were looking at. It isn't right to treat someone as being ridiculous, just because there are other's sharing their point of view who are ridiculous. This should be a discussion of the BEST points and not



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


>> Ooops. Who would have thought 6000+ characters would be such a limit.

Anyway, if I had more time, I'd have DEFINITIVE links to back up every point I'm breezing over. And the debunking seems to focus on bad Truther points.

The other issue is, that the NIST has been caught several times fudging their data.
... anyway, here is the rest of a previous discussion;



5- it? The floors were knocked off by the descending columns


Is the Core what you are calling columns, or is that the vertical i-Beams? I'm not aware of columns. But I would just repeat my main point: How does the core get destroyed if the floors are breaking free? Either theory of collapse means LESS pressure on the core. If there were shear forces (diagonal or perpendicular to vertical) that could tear apart the core -- we'd see the building topple to one side. Nobody could see what the core was doing except for the slump at the roofline that preceded the collapse.

That just wasn't possible. Nobody is going to convince me that the dang plane cut through the core -- and not at least to where one side wouldn't topple over. If there is enough force to cut the core -- we would have seen a LOT of material shoot out the other side. We only saw some flame. There was a lot of material like I-beams shot half a mile away, but that is consistent with explosives. An airplane, while having a lot of energy, is not that dense -- the wings didn't even cut through the i-beams I saw in photos of the impact. Only the engines are going to be hard enough to MAYBE punch through those core pipes -- and they would only take out one or two a piece -- and ONLY if the Plane were flown such that it exactly lined up with the center of the building.

That's some pretty good flying at 500 MPH for some people who didn't even know how to land an airplane.

But even with the improbable chain of events. Cutting the core at the top, doesn't explain the collapse of the core at the bottom. There should have been core sticking up out of the wreckage. It didn't. So it's a good clue that the core was collapsed first.

The preponderance of the evidence hints at foul play. And in this country, we put up trials for probable cause so that the rest of us don't have to let a lynch mob decide guilt or innocence.

I'm getting dang angry about Abu Ghraib, bogus wars, letting the Robber Barons gamble with the banks and then bailing them out. 9/11 is just the cherry on top. Justice denied.

I will never forget, and I will NEVER move on. The dense-headed opposition to justice only makes Progressives more determined, and more curious why people feel the need to defend, rich, greedy, corrupt bastards, when these people are never going to let them into the country club.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst



Well, If the descending parts are pulling down the floors -- that would mean the curtain wall.


It would mean both.


The curtain wall doesn't lose strength, until it loses the cantilever of the flooring that is pushing it out.


I don't think the floors would push out on the ext. I'd imagine that it would be designed to be neutral force.


The floor HAS TO, go first, if we accept the pancake theory


Sounds reasonable.


The columns, should be preventing the buckling in the first place.


Resisting, not preventing. They WILL have a limit to how much they can take.


The whole "buckling due to heat" is nonsense.


Engineers disagree with this. They have explained how a temp of only 250C over a period of an hour results in column failure, in any building. This is widely accepted as true among the engineering community.


So even if the curtain wall implodes and you lose outward pressure on the curtain wall on one floor -- this WOULD collapse floors above it -- it doesn't collapse the lower floors.


I'm not real sure what you're saying here, so I'll just say that floor failure leads to column failure


The inward buckling of the curtain wall and everything we saw-- including the core going first


I saw the ext columns failing slightly ahead of the cores.


they would have pre-weakened and put shaped charges on the last few floor supports so that THEY COULD BUCKLE.


This could indeed work, but you have to first discount accepted engineering concensus about columns buckling.... and THEN come to this conclusion. But I reject that line of thinking.


Again, a good investigation could prove one way or the other -- 1/2 of the way vs. all the way.


Yep, but I don't think it would have made much difference. Instead of welds breaking, something else would have happened - maybe buckling.


It still means that for 100+ feet, you've got a solid tube


No, they were in ~ 30' sections - truck length. How would you get 100'+ lengths through busy streets?


so there isn't enough force to bring it down without resistance[


It fell at about 40% less than freefall acceleration. So there was resistance. Most in the TM accept this now.



and you'd see the core sticking up at least at the base


There was uncollapsed core at the end. Some folks survived the collapses in the core.


According to my brother, who is a very gifted welder (and can tell you, a lot of welds are shoddy), welds ARE stronger than the original steel -- if done right.


So am I. Again, the BEAD can be stronger if done to full depth, but the ASSEMBLY cannot be made stronger by this. Ask your brother. Also ask him his opinion about 1/2 depth welds, and where they should break under side pressure.


Um, I'm imagining a bunch of metal tubes, which held the entire building for years. You don't have more downward force on the core when it is collapsing.


Yes you do. It's the difference between holding a static weight for yrs vs halting the same weight in motion. You need to understand the difference.




4- correct. But what happens is you now have an unbraced column that is more prone to buckling, or breaking welds from side impacts. This is the point you're not seeing.



No. I'm not saying a building crashing down can't BEND and tear the steel


Sure it can.








[edit on 16-2-2009 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Do your own research and come to your own conclusions...don't just blindly parrot claims made by other people because you want to believe what they believe or because your hatred for Bush makes you want to blame 9/11 on him.

News flash: Bush is no longer in office and nobody gives a rat's ass about blaming 9/11 on him. Contrary to the debunker's allegations, it was NEVER about Bush, who's little more than a puppet to Cheney and the neocon cabal.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst



I'm also quoting engineers.


Don't kid yourself. If there's a qualified SE or fire engineer backing the TM's claims, they won't be seeing their views in any respectable journal. But for the most part, the engineers you quote are electrical engineers, software engineers, etc... and will have no trouble with their jobs for making erroneous claims in a field that they aren't engaged in.


was the Chinese fire cooler or hotter for longer periods of time for instance?


You're forgetting the part in that report that says that the columns need to be at 50-70% load. An unfinished building isn't at those loads. And since this particular part of the discussion is about the towers, they didn't have plane impacts that would distribute loads to other columns either.


But there was nothing to get the core hot enough


250C is all that's necessary


and definitely, nothing to weaken it below the crash impact.


It doesn't need to. KE accounts for that.


The WTC did not fall at 40% slower than gravity


yes it did.


it fell in about 8 seconds


only the ext panels fell in about 9 or 10 seconds. The collpase front were much slower.


I don't buy that figure.


Doesn't matter what you want to believe. The truth is, this is widely accepted among structural and fire engineers. There has been no challenge to it, and note that this study was done in 2003.


I only noticed tipping on the top 20 floors of the North Tower


then watch one of 2. It also tips, just less.


steel to be reduced to dust.


With all due respect, this claim falls into the hologram believer catagory that you were admonishing another poster about.




posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst


How does the core get destroyed if the floors are breaking free?

WTC - once again, once the floors "inside the core area" are stripped from the core, they are unbraced, and will be more prone to buckling from purely vertical impacts/pressure, or fromwelds breaking from side impacts.



Nobody is going to convince me that the dang plane cut through the core


Nobody's trying to say that the plane cut through the entire core. This has been your own scenario that you feel is necessary since you also don't believe that columns can fail from 250C temps, even though it is accepted among SE's and FE's.


There was a lot of material like I-beams shot half a mile away


No.


Only the engines are going to be hard enough to MAYBE punch through those core pipes -- and they would only take out one or two a piece -- and ONLY if the Plane were flown such that it exactly lined up with the center of the building.


This is exactly what happened.


I will never forget, and I will NEVER move on.


Your issues with 9/11 will get you no where, for they are just wrong. Your political issues...... have merit.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Keep saying it.....but everyone ignores it...look at the fire panel and the information sent to remote monitoring co's...it's the only way to say for sure what happened.

Can discuss the structures till y'r blue in the face.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Those debunkers are idiots. LOL.

First of all. WTC7 WAS NOT HIT BY A JET FILLED WITH FUEL..

2nd, A hole in the building and a small fire would not cause the building to turn into complete DUST in mid air. The building collapsed onto itself. It didn't tip over because of a hole on one of it side.

Watch the video of it collapsing. The only way a building can collapse like that is with explosives.

Anyone want to explain why Larry Silverstien a Jew who owns the building said he was going to PULL the building? "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts.

Also, Larry Silverstein Purchased the buildings just months b4 the attack and he made sure he insured the building against one.

Anyone who said the WTC7 was hit by a jet, seriously need to do some research before they open their mouth. I mean, no wonder they believe everything the government tells them. (Power of Authority). These are the same idiots who believe that WTC7 was hit by a jet, and a PASSPORT survived the explosion, fire and all. RIGHT!!!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

1) All right, then its easy to cover up explosives, and the government in charge had nothing to do with the investigations of 9.11 -- is that right?

My personal belief is; it is HARD to cover up explosives used on steel. I think that HELPS the Bush government, because a real investigation could show conclusively any residues from shaped-charges, Thermite, or pre-cutting of beams. The lack of finding explosive and damage to the steel supports is because THEY GOT RID OF ALL THE STEEL AND DIDN'T ALLOW INDEPENDENT TESTING.

Yet another "trust me" moment -- Standard Operating Procedure for BushCo. Standard reply to people who don't buy that; "Why are you helping the enemy?" I know, we are all supposed to have forgotten that and MOVED ON.



2) Except that all of the rescue workers and cleanup workers would have seen the evidence...as would all of the people searching the rubble for remains. Thousands of people saw the debris before it was shipped off.

>> They had metallurgy kits and they were trained in Demolitions investigation? I think some had permits to drive trucks and cut metal -- does that help?
Discussing something with you is more annoying than putting toothpaste back in the tube. You bandy about your "fallacy" points, as if you aren't making lots of fallacies and perhaps just misapplying the ones you have memorized at Wikipedia.

Do I really HAVE TO ARGUE, that the Bush administration was responsible for the 9/11 investigation and al Qaeda wasn't? OK, then. You might also notice that a Bush family security agency gets the contract for the WTC, their name is Stratesec (that means access for rigging the building at night).

Do I have to argue that Rescue Workers, cannot be testing the steel and are untrained in Demolition investigations -- do I? And who is making a compendium of what the Rescue Workers know?
$911 Million First-Responder Lawsuit
>> Yeah, I'm sure that there would be a LOT of people who have much to say in a court of law. Unfortunately, we can't use them, because they are all ALREADY SUING BushCo. So many of them are too busy dying and too angry to be good witnesses. So, the evil of BushCo is great for the defense of BushCo once again.

Maybe it's not just the clean-up crew at Ground Zero -- nothing personal, maybe its that the BushCo just hates working people;
Bush admin failes safety and health

3)

Combination of impact damage AND fires. Thus, your choice between fire & demolition is a false dilemma.


>>Oh how clever! Here is another false dilemma; You are either intellectually dishonest or a nitwit. Of course, I didn't cover the possibility that you had been kidnapped, and someone was forcing you to blog insults and propaganda at gunpoint -- I'm sorry for the omission.

So, for sake of CLARITY FOR DISCUSSION; Impact AND Fire vs. demolition.

See how I turned that into an either or situation? I do that, so that we have a basis for discussion and not a lot of wiggle room for intellectually dishonest people to spout "prove it" all day. It's about wearing people out -- I've got a three-year-old who does that by repeating what I say back to me. Very similar debating skills as yourself and I hope I can help him to grow out of this phase.

We have incidents of impact and fire in New York City buildings and it didn't bring the buildings down. Look it up -- oh wait, let me just link to it -- why should you trust me? (At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building.) I guess a bomber on a smaller high-rise with less flexibility and older construction design isn't a fair comparison. This means, we will never have a reason to investigate--hooray!

I'm sure that I could link to every and all things that I say -- only, you would move on to discuss the quality of the links. Or ignore the content and just state that it was some fallacy, because you say it is.

Thusly and therefore; I'm sure you can find some other way to obscure that it's one of two things here. It is either demolition, or a consequence of the airplanes. It is either the Government (or their involvement in the coverup), or some bad guys from another country.

Can we just agree, that Saudi Arabia did not conduct the Ground Zero investigation? Probably not, I'm convinced you aren't serious.


4)

Don't make claims if you haven't bothered to even check their validity...no wonder you believe what you do, you haven't done the research like I have. I see no reason for me to continue to waste time on you if you can't even be bothered to research whether your own claims are true or not.
Do your own research and come to your own conclusions...don't just blindly parrot claims made by other people because you want to believe what they believe or because your hatred for Bush makes you want to blame 9/11 on him.
[edit on 16-2-2009 by adam_zapple]


>> This kind of ended the civility for me. I've done all my own research and I don't know who I'm parroting-- I don't need to convince myself AGAIN, do I? With serious people, I don't have to take baby steps on basic facts. With you, it depends on what the meaning of what "is" is.

If someone makes a touch-down -- you just move the goal posts.

I'm trying to avoid having to depend upon too much PROOF -- I'm endeavoring to argue only the logic based upon the video and the structure. Even with the Dueling heat vs. steel strength discussions, even IF there was enough heat (which I dispute) -- the collapse could not have occurred that way (according to me) and the core could not have fallen WITH OR BEFORE the floors as it did. If the floors pulled down the core -- well, it fell WAY TOO FAST, and it's hard to believe that the building got heavier just because it was collapsing -- ERGO, there was nothing to pull down the core except the weight of the building that was already on it. And the floors fell fast WITH the core. That looks like a Demolition.

>> CONTINUED



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join