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.

 

WTC Core Column Lies from NIST

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
We all know 9/11 was an inside job, and we also know the NIST reports
were total garbage. Their claims were based on lies, imagination and poor
physics.

Video evidence of the "aircraft" hitting the South tower shows the jet
banking while entering off axis from right of center toward the North-East
corner. In other words, the fuselage was not in proximity to cut the core columns.

The story is that the wings and fuel cut the outer perimeter columns to
allow the less massive and dense wings to enter the building. What we
were not told, and sometimes forget to account for are the large concrete
floors suspended by steel trusses and steel floor pans.

What we saw on TV on Sept.11th was fake and not in real-time. This is not
to say an airplane was not involved (perhaps) , it simply means the planes
we were shown did not hit the building.

I believe some sort of "aircraft" flew into each tower as suggested by the
inward bent columns. Explosives would blow/bend the columns outward.

With respect to the video(s) of the aircraft entering the South tower...you
know the one that 'melts' through? It's total horse sh*t, and here is why:

Sure, the aircraft could break through the perimeter columns...maybe the
fuselage struck between the floors and only had to cope with steel perimeter
columns which made entry somewhat easy.

The wings however met with steel perimeter columns and CONCRETE FLOORS!

The "aircraft" entered on an angle/bank as shown by the impact hole and
video. How do you explain the wing cutting through glass and steel AT THE
SAME RATE as STEEL and an CONCRETE FLOOR?

It's impossible! We're not talking about one floor either; more like SEVEN
floors of concrete and steel.

If you launched a one acre steel reinforced concrete floor at the wing of a
Boeing 767 at 500 + MPH, do you think the wing (and fuel
) could
break it apart and reach the core columns? What has more mass, and
density? The wing with fuel, or a four inch thick concrete floor, sitting on
steel runners?







The floor wins EVERY time. No chance in hell the wing tips make it. No
chance the wings make it. Maybe...maybe the engines could wreck the
floors, but I'd still put my money on the concrete. I could link up several
photos of bird strikes hacking up wings, but I'm sure you've all seen those.
If a bird can slice up a wing, think about the force of SEVEN FLOORS of
the Word Trade Center!

(we will forget the fact that those floors are also connected to the rest of
the tower which also effects mass, interia, etc.)

And the "NOSE OUT"? Give me a break! It wouldn't even have a point on
it! Whatever "that" was, could not have been the NOSE of a 767 in any,
shape, or form! Cutting through at least two walls of steel? Come on...

Planes may have struck the building. They certainly were not UA/AA and
the videos shown on mass media were definitely not real-time live footage...
at least not the South tower.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by turbofan]

[edit on 6-8-2009 by turbofan]




posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   

We all know 9/11 was an inside job,


Right there, you're off to a bad start. We all *don't* know this. In fact, a large number of people do not believe that 9/11 was anything other than an attack by foreign nationals acting under the direction of Osama bin Laden. True - not everyone believes that story. However, few people *know* that this was an "inside job".

You speak as though you know what would happen when a large jetliner crashes into a building with concrete floors, and then dismiss the 9/11 evidence as faked because it doesn't agree with what you think you know. However, even engineers are not so presumptuous as to believe they know the answers. It may be "obvious" that the concrete would stop the plane's more delicate structures, but on the other hand, how much experience do you have with examining the aftermath of large jet planes full of fuel hitting tall buildings? Not much, since this was the first time it ever happened. No one has that experience.

Yes, I expect concrete would stop a delicate structure such as a wing. However, you'd expect that a plank of wood would stop something as delicate as a piece of straw (straw as in the vegetable matter from harvesting, not a drinking straw). Still, there are cases in which a straw penetrated a piece of wood or a tree after a tornado. So the "obvious" isn't always what happens.

Moreover, let's say the wings hit all those floors as you claim. For all you know, the effect could be something like Jell-O flying into a wire grill. Most of it would pass right through, even though the wire parts would obstruct the Jell-O. Or make it an egg, and have it moving fast (like an overhand fastball, say). You think the shell won't mostly go through the grill? I'm pretty sure that most of the egg would go through, with the possible exception of some shell that got pulverized, that might stick to the metal.

To be honest, I haven't actually tried it. I can just imagine trying to explain to the Chicago Police why I'm throwing raw eggs at an oven grill. "Well, you see, I'm trying to see whether 9/11 was a conspiracy". Right.

The fact is, we really don't know what a plane would do if it hit a building, except what we saw with 9/11. Since our speculations have no other evidence to back them - since we have no other jet/building interactions - they remain only speculations, guesses that are without support.

As for the core column - well, no one who's talking about it was there to see what happened. Whoever was there, isn't talking because they're dead.

This whole claim relies on the notion that whoever did this "inside job" was stupid enough to create an unconvincing scenario, yet somehow managed to keep this a secret for all these years. Not likely.

[edit on 8/6/2009 by chiron613]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Yes, I expect concrete would stop a delicate structure such as a wing. However, you'd expect that a plank of wood would stop something as delicate as a piece of straw (straw as in the vegetable matter from harvesting, not a drinking straw). Still, there are cases in which a straw penetrated a piece of wood or a tree after a tornado. So the "obvious" isn't always what happens.




Saw that video...of the straw sticking into the tree, etc. Do you have
any idea what you are trying to relate here? You are not even close
to understanding the content of my post.

You don't have to be an engineer to understand that a slab of concrete
reinforced with steel, sitting on top of steel trusses and steel floor pans
will rip through a wing.

Did you happen to see what a bird strike does to an aircraft wing by chance?
Maybe you should scurry off and check out a few of these videos/photos...
then ask yourself what a few thousand tons of concrete and steel would do
to your 767...



[edit on 6-8-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   
There is a presumption here that we are better-informed than many of us may be. I have been on the internet intensely for about a year now and though I was not looking for 911 stories, it is mentioned often on the sites I was interested in. But I didn't get any sort of major briefing about the out-points of the cover story until I sat down to watch Project Camelot's interview with John Lear which I downloaded just yesterday.

Apparently there isn't a lot of good science available on the subject, as the people who were paid to come up with straight answers apparently got persuaded to do something else.

But the basic proposition would be to simulate the collision and see what it looked like in simulation. Do any of us have the resources to do this?

I agree, though, at an intuitive level. Those buildings were big and solid. Would a huge plane really just sort of glide into a building like that or would it start to break apart almost as soon as it started going in? Animations based on a realistic simulation would be worth a thousand words. Is anyone willing to take it on? Or has someone already done this? Does someone know a link to images or graphics that would help demonstrate what is being talked about?

-- I looked for this myself just now and only found the Purdue simulation.

This simulation has the plane cutting through the building like a knife through butter and spewing a considerable amount of debris out of the other side. Could it have happened that way? John Lear said there was very little debris from the crash found. Does that make sense? Like I say, I haven't researched it heavily myself. It just seems to me the plane would have started to crack up before it fully entered the building and that pieces of it would have fallen on the side of the impact.




[edit on 6-8-2009 by l_e_cox]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
...However, you'd expect that a plank of wood would stop something as delicate as a piece of straw (straw as in the vegetable matter from harvesting, not a drinking straw). Still, there are cases in which a straw penetrated a piece of wood or a tree after a tornado. So the "obvious" isn't always what happens.


And the "obvious" is not always what you think it is.

Turbo is right. Newtons laws explains, in collisions mass determines which object receives the most damage. Inertia will contribute to the amount of damage, but the object with the least mass will still receive the most damage. Someone said this in another thread, imagine a baseball bat hitting an orange, no matter how hard the orange hits the bat, or the bat hits the orange, there is no way the orange would break the bat.

www.drjudywood.com...

The straw analogy has nothing to do with mass, or inertia...


How do tornadoes do some weird things, like drive straw into trees, strip road pavement and drive splinters into bricks?
The list of bizarre things attributed to tornadoes is almost endless. Much of it is folklore; but there are some weird scenes in tornado damage. Asphalt pavement may strip when tornado winds sandblast the edges with gravel and other small detritus, eroding the edges and causing chunks to peel loose from the road base. Storm chasers and damage surveyors have observed this phenomenon often after the passage of a violent tornado. With a specially designed cannon, wind engineers at Texas Tech University have fired boards and other objects at over 100 mph into various types of construction materials, duplicating some of the kinds of "bizarre" effects, such as wood splinters embedded in bricks. Intense winds can bend a tree or other objects, creating cracks in which debris (e.g., hay straw) becomes lodged before the tree straightens and the crack tightens shut again. All bizarre damage effects have a physical cause inside the roiling maelstrom of tornado winds. We don't fully understand what some of those causes are yet, however; because much of it is almost impossible to simulate in a lab

www.spc.noaa.gov...

A straw lodging in a tree from velocity goes against known physics, much like a plane melting into a building like butter.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
What we saw on TV on Sept.11th was fake and not in real-time. This is not
to say an airplane was not involved (perhaps) , it simply means the planes
we were shown did not hit the building.

Uh huh, and all the people who captured the second impact with their own personal video recorders just happen to be in on it.

TV fakery, eh turbs?

I won't need to be reminded to never take you seriously again.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   
By far the most abstract angle of explanation from that day, had to be at the commission regarding....

Q). `How/why did WTC7 collapse?`.

A). `No one mention it`.

Priceless, absolutely priceless.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by discombobulator
 


How many angles of the "melting plane" video are you aware of? You
do know about the conflicting angles of attack, correct?

Do you acutally believe a 4 inch x 208 foot x 40 foot slab of concrete,
coupled with steel beams and steel floor pans ( x seven floors) can be
sliced by a 767 wing?


Keep in mind this wing is hitting the floors nearly perpendicular. ..wing
tips and all?


Go back to school Disco.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by turbofan]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by discombobulator
 


How many angles of the "melting plane" video are you aware of? You
do know about the conflicting angles of attack, correct?

Do you acutally believe a 4 inch x 208 foot x 40 foot slab of concrete,
coupled with steel beams and steel floor pans ( x seven floors) can be
sliced by a 767 wing?


Keep in mind this wing is hitting the floors nearly perpendicular. ..wing
tips and all?


Go back to school Disco.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by turbofan]


Aye if you think of the position of the floor trusses in respect of the wings, the impact is against the strongest part of a beam the H part.

EDIT: P.S.

P.S.

Theoretically this is what those wings faced H-H-H-H-H-H-H, and 100mm of concrete on top ofc.

[edit on 30/07/2009 by Seventh]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by discombobulator
 


How many angles of the "melting plane" video are you aware of? You
do know about the conflicting angles of attack, correct?

TV fakery.



You're hopeless, turbs.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by discombobulator
 


I'd rather be hopeless than completely ignorant.

Seventh: By perpendicular to the floor, I meant the wing encounters
full depth of the floor, as opposed to width of the floor (Just as you
explain with the "H" analogy of the facing beams).

Good to see you get this unlike someone else in here!



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
By far the most abstract angle of explanation from that day, had to be at the commission regarding....

Q). `How/why did WTC7 collapse?`.

A). `No one mention it`.

Priceless, absolutely priceless.


I watched two documentaries yesterday on 9/11. One was made by the Discovery Channel and the other by National Geographic. They both portrayed the events the same as the official story, which is fine, but both also omitted any mention of the collapse of WTC 7. Maybe it's just considered no big deal compared to the other events of that day because the area had been evacuated and no one died, I don't know.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


What is the point you are trying to make?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
My theory is the Twins were struck by missiles which were disguised as commercial airliners. What happened to the passangers you ask? The same thing that happened to their family members who failed to show up at their final destinations. In other words, nowhere to be found.

The gullible American public got whitewashed by a bunch of scumbags . What else is new?

[edit on 6-8-2009 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


What missile is the size and configuration of a commercial airliner and only has a payload of aviation fuel? Could it be that it is much simpler just to fly an airplane into the buildings?

The gullible Quebecquois got whitewashed by a bunch of scumbag websites. What else is new?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Come on PT, think about it:




How do the wings go through spanderals at the same velocity as 4 inch concrete floors supported by steel floor pans and trusses?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine
 


Come on PT, think about it:




How do the wings go through spanderals at the same velocity as 4 inch concrete floors supported by steel floor pans and trusses?



Why would they have to? The plane and structure were both being destroyed. If the floors cut the plane as they were being cut, at some point the pieces were independent of one another and still moving through the building. The parts of highest ballistic coefficient would go the furthest and do the most physical damage while the parts containing fuel would scatter and ignite.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by pteridine
 


Come on PT, think about it:




How do the wings go through spanderals at the same velocity as 4 inch concrete floors supported by steel floor pans and trusses?



Why would they have to? The plane and structure were both being destroyed. If the floors cut the plane as they were being cut, at some point the pieces were independent of one another and still moving through the building. The parts of highest ballistic coefficient would go the furthest and do the most physical damage while the parts containing fuel would scatter and ignite.


Exactly. NOw look at the NIST report. Look at the blue prints of the towers. Look the bank angle and trajectory of the plane.

Figure it out.

NIST LIES!



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


What, exactly, did NIST lie about?



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I can see or agree with the plausibility of the floor straps being
compromised.
This would lead to floor collapse.
The outside beams would easily collapse.
But as in one animation the core beams remained.
Damaged core beams perhaps were never presented
and are now gone.


[edit on 8/8/2009 by TeslaandLyne]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join