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.

 

Simulation shows why World Trade Center towers fell: it's the heat

page: 14
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Oh, this just in: I just bought the pdf and read it, and turns out it's wrong. I would explain how but I want you to have the pdf in front of you again too before I try to explain, or else you won't have a clue what I'm talking about.



Terrific!

So now you're gonna publish your findings, right?

I hear Bentham will publish anything, as long as you've got $800.




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 

Yes it was heat, but it is not the heat from some diesel fuel.

What the heat was and what it did is described in the video in
my signature.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


So in the mean time, why not explain to us NIST's hypothesis again?


Why not discuss Valhall's hypothesis?

She's the one making claims about it.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


So what was NIST's hypothesis again?


This is the 6th time in a row I've asked. I guess I'll go for 20, just to drive the point home that you know you're screwed.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Why not discuss Valhall's hypothesis?


Well, one reason is that my tax money didn't go to Val, it went to NIST. The other reason is because NIST is supposed to be the authority here, not Val. And the third reason is because I'm laughing my ass off at how pathetic you are, trying to dodge this. Is this what you call "troof"?

[edit on 22-9-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Maj35t1cI2
 


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

excellent post!!!

not.

"lolz"

valhall is an engineer. bsbray and i have been studying 911 for 8 years.
joey canoli is just a sock puppet of the "government" internet troll patrol's desk agents (and i'm guessing by the quality of your post that you have either just recently joined the ranks, or are just hopelessly naive).
these trolls are useful because they help point out the REAL flaws in the "truther" arguments.

MILLIONS of people, and i wouldn't be surprised if it's BILLIONS of people around the world see 911 for what it was: an inside job. many of them are PHD's in physics, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, physics, architecture, political science, media science, and many are generals in the military, and high level secret service types.

many do not use internet slang to make their "point", roflcopters.

the issue being discussed at this point in the thread is whether the interior truss floor seats on the perimeter and the core were stressed in a way consistent with the NIST report's assumptions about the "collapse".

if you have nothing to add to this very detailed discussion, perhaps you should just go yak on MSM with your compadres, and not hang around on conspiracy forums, lulz.

O_o

[edit on 22-9-2009 by billybob]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
if you have nothing to add to this very detailed discussion, perhaps you should just go yak on MSM with your compadres, and not hang around on conspiracy forums, lulz.


I don't think anyone has really added anything to the discussion since Val posted those pics of the core columns. That pretty much brought things to an end.

As you can plainly see all down this page, Canoli is still evading my single question like the plague. Because he knows Val shut this thread down.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
6000 gallons of fuel ignited upon impact per plane. The other 4000 gallons ignited as the buildings collapsed causing the disinegration of everything in it's way. The hijackers made sure the planes were stocked full of gas, it was a priority of which planes were chosen.

Star and flag John, for bringing up the reality of 9/11.


Space Cadet, some irony there to be sure.

As some ppl here in the US have stated many times, no matter
how many days they burn their kerosene ( aka jet fuel ) lanterns
they won't melt.

Maybe you could help us figure out how jet fuel turned huge steel
beams weighing tons into liquid metal like in a foundry as the
firefighters have clearly stated on video on the record.

You can see them stating this fact in the video in my sig.

Please, do not insult the memory of the dead with statements
like diesel fuel turned steel beams into molten metal for over
a week, it just does not make sense and the truth is on a collision
course with the ppl that are continuing to lie in the face of facts.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Because he knows Val shut this thread down.


Really?

Cuz her hypothesis has nothing at all to do with heat and the collapse initiation.

Her question has to do with how the collapse progressed after initiation.

Guess you missed that, eh?



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Val's hypothesis makes sense, but NIST's doesn't. You don't even want to talk about NIST's hypothesis, obviously. I'm talking about how the core columns were severed from the trusses.


Here's the 7th time in a row I've asked: What was NIST's hypothesis again?

[edit on 22-9-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


yes, i noticed that "joey canoli" uses all the stock "debunker" arguments that all the debbies (debunkers) use, and when actually cornered to produce his own argument, tries to steer the conversation away from actually discussing the relevant content.

you ask for facts, and he makes it all about you. like, we need to spend thirty bucks on some mythical paper.
joey, just argue the points of the mythical paper if you really understand it. we don't need to read something that you can obviously give us a quick abstract of since you know the material so well.
let's meet on common ground, here, debbie.

p.s. i wouldn't have bothered with that last post if i had realised that there were two more pages of joey the slippery canoli playing "debate for fun".
still. i had fun responding to the disinfo bot.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
yes, i noticed that "joey canoli" uses all the stock "debunker" arguments that all the debbies (debunkers) use, and when actually cornered to produce his own argument, tries to steer the conversation away from actually discussing the relevant content.


You say this, and we have direct evidence of it all over this page. He is a troll.

If this were an honest and civil discussion, I would not have to ask the same question 7+ times to receive a legitimate response. This is just getting funnier and funnier. Or sadder and sadder. Take your pick.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


trollier and trollier?
patheticer and patheticer?



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
This is what the NIST report said as quoted 2 or 3 pages back:


From the 21 channels with seats, a total of 31 seats were available for inspection...Over 90 percent of the seats were still intact with the majority of these somewhat deformed. Only two seats were observed to be ripped comletely from the channel at the welded joint between the seat and the channel.


That is regarding the seats on the core columns. The exterior columns showed a different failure mechanism as noted.

And here are Val's own specific words to Canoli:


Originally posted by Valhall
I have no idea why the majority of the external seats would fail in a downward direction (including being completely stripped from the external columns) while the majority of the of the inner seats remained intact and show no severe downward force.

It's stymied me for quite some time.

Do you have a tantalizing explanation for me?



Jerry was trying to argue for some time that most of the seats on the core were bent downward apparently, and specifically referenced all the photos that Val posted, and that were obviously NOT all bent downward like the exterior column truss seats were.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Would you like a cup of thermite with that heat?

www.911lies.org...

Or how about some secondary explosives located in the basement?

Hm?



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

The core seats have 2 -5/8" bolts only, from what I can see, correct?

The ext column seats have 2 - 5/8" bolts, a 3/8" gusset plate welded to the top chord and the column, 2 - 1" bolts holding the damper, and the occasional (?) strap holding it to the ext column.

Apply weight to a floor and it sags some, and puts these connections under tension, correct? Which will break free first?

If my belief is correct, and the core connection breaks first, there will be little to no downward bending.

The ect connection will "hold on" longer, and allow the floor to tilt, since the interior connection is now broken. And so, the seat will be bent and torn in a downward manner.

So...... like I've been saying..... the collapse progression depends on the strength of the floor connections. The columns had no part in it.....


Dear Mr. Joey Canoli,

In this thread you have called anyone who questions or contradicts the official report a degenerate, twoofer, and delusional - just to name a few.

I would like to welcome you with open arms to this group - which label above you would prefer? Because "the Joey-Canoli Theory" is in direct contradiction to the official report.

The NIST report wants us to believe the magical floor trusses (very similar to the magical bullet, if you will) performed the following series of acrobatic feats because they were just "bustin' to break free":

1. Pushed the external columns out and then they...
2. Sagged and pulled them in until they...
3. Walked sideways far enough to shear the bolts on the core column seats and then...
4. Just kept walking sideways until they...
5. Walked off the external seats and...
6. Failed the external seats in a downward motion.

Now, you say otherwise, so I think you should get with them. OR, we could help you write up a paper and you could get it published and get 30 bucks a copy for it and be "bonafide"...you know, "have authority".

I'd like to point out I like your theory more than the fantastical NIST theory. I mean, after all, it's pretty friggin hard to get a floor truss to do the electric slide sideways when it has an integral concrete slab preventing horizontal movement - not to mention the cross bracing. I'm not sure if all the trusses got together and did a line dance sideways, or what...because some one else had to move their big-assed concrete slab out of the way by 4-5/8" (the required horizontal movement for any given floor truss to "walk off" its truss seat) in order for another truss and it's big-assed concrete slab to move that far.

I'm 100% behind you and will assist in anyway I can in you getting your corrective message out so that NIST sees the lunacy of their statements.

Just u2u - I'm here for you bro!

[edit on 9-22-2009 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


What do you want me to do, seriously? Do you want me to spend $30, or do you want me to drive to a closed library? Oh, this just in: I just bought the pdf and read it, and turns out it's wrong. I would explain how but I want you to have the pdf in front of you again too before I try to explain, or else you won't have a clue what I'm talking about.


WELL, FOR PETE'S SAKE! bsbray...if you can't get responsible with your money I'm going to contact your wife/mother/significant other and demand they get approval signature on your checking account.

The Powerball is up to 127 MILLION BUCKS and you just blew 30 chances at it simply because Joey-Canoli's criteria for an "authoritative source" is...

1. Can't be light words on a dark background - must be black words on white paper, and
2. Can't be free access - must cost opponent money.

I'm calling PETA because every time you feed that monster a kitten dies!



YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF! Look at that litte cutey run for its life and that's YOUR 30 bucks chasing it!


*can't look anymore*



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


No, I'm talking about during the collapse progression, not initiation. it would be nearly impossible to find a core seat in the collapse initiation zone.

So now think about what I said, keeping in mind debris falling on top of the floors as the collapse progressed.

THAT is what I thought what you were referring to. A point, I might add, that was not covered in the NIST report.

Everything YOU just laid out in your bullet points deals with initiation. Or have I been reading your question as to WHY the seats below the initiation zone were bent down wrong. Are you mixing the 2 up, or I?



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I would not have to ask the same question 7+ times to receive a legitimate response.


The definition of insane is doing the same thng over and over, and expecting a new outcome.

This describes the twoof movement to a "T".

Please read my response to Valhall. IMHO, her question about the truss seats deals with collapse progression, a point not covered in the NIST report.

And since you had no clue about what she was asking in the first place, and decided to go on a rant about NISt, as usual, you never bothered to make the connection between her question, and the fact it wasn't dealt with in the report.

That's why I never bothered. I wanted to see if you would realize that after you had to ask what Valhall's question actually was, and what we were attempting to discuss, whether or not you would go back and read our discussion for context.

You failed miserably at that. This also fits the twoof movement to a "T".

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
reply to post by Valhall
 


No, I'm talking about during the collapse progression, not initiation. it would be nearly impossible to find a core seat in the collapse initiation zone.

So now think about what I said, keeping in mind debris falling on top of the floors as the collapse progressed.

THAT is what I thought what you were referring to. A point, I might add, that was not covered in the NIST report.

Everything YOU just laid out in your bullet points deals with initiation. Or have I been reading your question as to WHY the seats below the initiation zone were bent down wrong. Are you mixing the 2 up, or I?


Actually, you are wrong and you are missing the big white elephant in the middle of the NIST room. Because their comments refer to the "floors below the initial collapse area". And they cover this, repetitively, with the hand-waving comment "and then global collapse ensued". That's equivalent to "it can be shown" or "obvious to those skilled in the art". Unfortunately, this time it's not obvious to anyone truly "skilled in the art".

I'm sorry, but this is a cop out. And, as I said, your hypothesis contradicts the report because they do state these comments to floors below the initial collapse zone.

[edit on 9-22-2009 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
At last,I hadda read alla joey's crap to be sure no onne else mentioned this...Gunsmith is correct in all points.Rifling is inside a barrel of most firearms.FLUTING is outside the barrel of high powered rifle barrels to dissipate heat.This heat,like a mirage,causes waviness in the sight picture,not so good in placing a lethal hole at a distance.He knows whereof he speaks.To say there was shoddy welding or inferior steel is utter crap.Any engineer will tell you that after all is done,the cost of the mtrl's is but a fraction of the total cost.To illustrate,there is the matter of getting them hoisted.If one section was inferior,the cost of pulling it back off and then down and out would far exceed the intial cost of the girders.To assert otherwise is utter crap.Steel is cheap,concrete is cheap,getting it there and working it is expensive.Welding rods are much more expensive,pound for pound,than the steel girders.Fasteners are the most expensive component of any assemblage.Instead of trolls I'm gonna call these guys joeycanolis,in dishonor.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join