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 construction manager speaks of the resilience of the twin towers

page: 18
16
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
He is a truther, they all lie!


That is not evidence it's just your biased opinion. You have to take that opinion to justify dismissing what he had to say, you're all so transparent.

I know you are willing to except everything on a very superficial level because you believe the official story, which has been proved to be an incomplete study that based it's conclusions on assumptions not evidence, and get upset because we're questioning it (why else are you here?).


To get his picture/name on web sites etc.


Ridiculous, one because he didn't need to lie to do that, and two not everyone is obsessed with getting their face on the internet.


Stop and think why he is the only person who knew about this "power shutdown"


And how do you know that?




posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek



OK we've had this same discussion many times, you do have perseverance but so do I.



Apparently you are not too familiar with physics as you think.


Well when I've finished here we'll see who knows more about physics.


When the WTCs collapsed, where the hell else would they go once collapse starts? Up? Sideways? No, it goes down according to gravity.


Obviously you don't understand RESISTANCE, a fact that I and others have pointed out continually during these discussions. Gravity is not stronger than welded and/or bolted steel sry.
The other problem you have is your assumption that once the collapse was initiated that it's global collapse was inevitable. I wonder where you get this idea from, oh yes the NIST report.
But you fail to even account for the collapse initiating to begin with. Do you forget that our argument is that the collapse should never have happened from plane impact and office fires, period?
And you know why NIST didn't explain anything past initiation? Cause they couldn't, there is no explanation they could admit to. So they hoped people like you would not notice the huge omission from their so called report.

OK now this is the important stuff here......

Funny you should mention 'sideways', do you forget what happened to WTC2, remember the tilting top? What would you have expected that to do, suddenly decide to take the path of MOST resistance when it was already taking the path of LEAST resistance?
You expect an object with 'angular momentum' to suddenly become vertical momentum through thousands of tons of undamaged steel? How does that tilting top become the 'pancaking' of floors you describe?
Also what happened to the central core if the floors simply fell down on top of each other? How can the floors both pull the central core down with them AND become detached from them?


The WTCs collapsed from the top down, and partly to blaim for this is the design itself of the WTC's tube-in-tube style. Are you remotely familiar with the WTC's designs?....


I think by your description I am far more familiar with the WTC design than you. As I asked above you are forgetting a lot of points with your the floors fell on floors hypothesis, like WTC2 TILTING. Which means it could not have fallen true on lower floors to cause a SYMMETRICAL collapse, it's got nothing to do with 'seeming like it symmetrical', it WAS and from very chaotic events.


You say we have a lack of understanding of physics?


You won't even realise how stupid you sound. You have a lot to learn.
None of you can even explain the thermal energy that would have needed to heat up the steel to failure, in an hour from office fires. Can you? All you can do is revert to 'did you forget there was a plane impact'.


see how easy it is for a total collapse when just one floor is removed:
prwvj-npt5s
Just one floor removed. And lookie how it travels right through the path of "most resistance". So in your words, this should not have happened either correct?


I HOPE after reading what I said above you will realize this is irrelevant for what happened to the towers, particularly WTC2. Along with all your other analogies that just tell me you don't really understand what was going on with the towers.


And I fully expect you to cherry pick what I've said to fit your lame arguments, to save face...

[edit on 1/5/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I know you are willing to except everything on a very superficial level


and once again you are wrong.


And how do you know that?


So care to name anyone else that knew about it, any official record? How do you explain the sightseers that were on the roof, when the claim was it was shut down? Or is it just something that you ignore as it destroys your ct!



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 





actual bombs


You have someone who actually came across a bomb? Someone who saw explosives, detonator etc? And not someone who said, "We THINK there might be a secondary device?" WHO?



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


And I refer you to my last post. Do you have the name of someone who actually found a secondary device? Chief Tursi does not count because he never saw one.

Bonus points for finding the transcript dispatching the bomb squad to take care of a "secondary device"



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Resistance is just that! Resistance . Not total stoppage. Yes the top did list but once the collapse and grinding fragmentation started it was contained somewhat inside the building footprint by the outer "STEEL" shell like stuff inside a blender. You know, the blender theory.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by the eyes have it !!
 


If there was resistance the collapse wave would have slowed, not accelerated through the path of most resistance.

None of you seem to understand resistance and friction, both properties are more powerful than gravity.


Newton's second law of motion pertains to the behavior of objects for which all existing forces are not balanced. The second law states that the acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables - the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object. The acceleration of an object depends directly upon the net force acting upon the object, and inversely upon the mass of the object. As the force acting upon an object is increased, the acceleration of the object is increased. As the mass of an object is increased, the acceleration of the object is decreased.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

There was no force acting on the building, according to the official story and you, than gravity during the collapse, and the tops mass never changed. The building was designed to withstand the force of gravity simply through welded and bolted columns etc., those welds and bolts were not effected by plane or fire other than a few floors.
How does gravity overcome resistance in that system, when according to you and the official story, no external force was acting on the towers once collapse was initiated?
The plane impact and fires had already done their job, initiate the collapse, how did they contribute to the global collapse? I asked you to explain the thermal energy required to heat up the steel enough to fail completely and you failed at doing that, and if you don't understand basics like that how can I take you seriously?

Before you can go ahead with your hypothesis you have to explain how thermal energy works, to be able to explain how all the steel got hot enough to fail. I'm tired if hearing claims that people cannot support.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You have someone who actually came across a bomb? Someone who saw explosives, detonator etc? And not someone who said, "We THINK there might be a secondary device?" WHO?



Yes, I do, but first, just to be fair, can you show me reports of people saying they actually SAW bottles of janitors' cleaners exploding, electrical generators, things like that?

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
If the 'explosion' noises were just general office stuff exploding then why were fire fighters so confused about the sounds?

Don't you think professional experienced firefighters would know what sounds are generally heard in fires?

I know you've all seen this before...

www.youtube.com...

How come they didn't automatically assume that it was just stuff exploding in the fire? Are they fake firefighters?



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48


First responders testimonies broken down to catagories



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


This statement



If there was resistance the collapse wave would have slowed, not accelerated through the path of most resistance.

None of you seem to understand resistance and friction, both properties are more powerful than gravity



There was resistance but there is no reason for a collapse wave to slow but to accelerate to the point of terminal velocity. There were 25-30 FLOORS, the size of most medium size buildings, that was suddenly not able to be dispersed and basic physics tells us that something motion stays in motion till it hits something that can stop it....like the ground.

There is NO physical evidence to suggest anything other than airliners hitting the towers. LOTs of people heard explosions. I am sure that it sounded like the end of the world but this does not make it an explosion. A duck call sounds like a duck call but it is not a duck.

This post was about the resilience of the building. It survived the initial impact as it should and then it collapsed due to catastrophic structural failure and not mini nukes, space lasers or nano thermite.

I mean, why not just blow it up like the 93 bombing since so many are convinced that there were bombs planted. Why try to coordinate air strikes in 4 locations when you could have just blown it up and destroyed the evidence in the rubble? That could have killed 10' of thousands and the government would have a check to write to drop nukes. If it was a plan by the government it FAILED miserably.

The towers did not fail however and saved 1000's of lives.....



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


We've been over it all before and I'm still of the opinion that the path of most vs path of least resistance problem is satisfied by the large volume of material spilling over the side in order to reach the ground ahead of the collapse wave. Most of that material 'spilling over' had to take part in the melee within the walls first though IE it contributed to the destruction before it 'escaped' and something in the region of 80% of the mass actually ended up outside the footprint of the buildings.

There was resistance and it just becomes a question of how much hence the question - What was providing resistance to a vertical collapse once the section of building above the impact zone was in motion?
(I'd estimate that top section of WTC2 to represent something like 10-15% of the building's total above-ground mass)

The buildings were resilient enough to survive the plane strikes but not indefinitely and once the unthinkable (collapse initiation) started, there was no stopping it just as we observed in reality.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


So Anok, why did the two videos I posted of the buildings being demolished show acceleration? I mean in these two cases, the top floors crashed right down through the bottom floors and were actually accelerating! And get this, these buildings had more in the way in terms of beams, concrete and such. And yet, the building collapse accelerated down! Was there resistance? You bet! Was it enough to slow it down or stop it completely? Hell no. It only stopped when it hit the ground cause the ground gave the most resistance.

I gave you an A for effort, but an F for understanding physics. An object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by another force. In this case lets see: 15+ - 30+ floors of steel and concrete moving downwards as one mass encountering negligible resistance below from the bolts holding up the floor trusses and connecting the ends to the core and exterior columns. Bolts sheered and failed, allowing for the growing mass which is traveling downward by gravity to continue to accelerate, overcoming the resistance below. THAT is called understanding physics. Once the collapse initiated it was unstoppable until it hit the ground. The mass increased along with the velocity. All due to gravity.
Here is a simple experiment you can try at home! Take a 12 bowling ball and hold it out in front of you. Feels like its 12 pounds right? But you can hold it up. Now take that 12lb ball and have someone stand on a step ladder 1 ft above you, holding the ball. Let them release it and you try to catch it. Then try it again from 2ft, 3ft, ..... 10ft, 20ft. See how much harder it gets to try an catch it. Now, have the bowling ball crash through 1/4" sheets of light concrete set up every two feet above in a stack. Now stand under it when the whole mass comes crashing down on you just from that one 12lb bowling falling through the sheets. You see, the mass and velocity will increase all the way down!



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Here,s a experiment for you my friend .

Take two 47 floor buildings and secure them in the air

Take the bottom 16 floors off of 1 of them , and drop them both.

Which roof hits the ground first.


On that magical day , it was a TIE

Physics is fun



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
 


So Anok, why did the two videos I posted of the buildings being demolished show acceleration?


Because they were being demolished and as part of that, many of the inner structures of a building that offer resistance are weakened or removed altogether. Try and find an example that does not have internal preparation done, and you may have a point.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


Nice try.


Total collapse times for both towers was between 25-35 seconds. Unless you are mistaking the initial debris that was falling first as the actual collapse, you are failing to take into account the collapse of the whole entire building. sure it may have taken about 15 seconds for the initial debris to hit the ground, but that tower collapsed for about 30 seconds total. Mistaking the first debris to hit the ground as the actual collapse speed is wrong.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Well the only floors in those videos were prepped were the areas where they placed the demolition equipment. They still went down without explosives.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Well the only floors in those videos were prepped were the areas where they placed the demolition equipment. They still went down without explosives.


I would just loooooooooooooooooooooooove some documentation on their demolition procedure; one that causes an accelerating fall through reinforced steel and concrete with no prep on the main points of support (resistance) to the falling section released above. Thanks!

[edit on 1/6/10 by Lillydale]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


en.wikipedia.org...

As the object accelerates (usually downwards due to gravity), the drag force acting on the object increases, causing the acceleration to decrease. At a particular speed, the drag force produced will equal the object's weight (mg). At this point the object ceases to accelerate altogether and continues falling at a constant speed called terminal velocity (also called settling velocity). Terminal velocity varies directly with the ratio of weight to drag. More drag means a lower terminal velocity, while increased weight means a higher terminal velocity. An object moving downward with greater than terminal velocity (for example because it was affected by a downward force or it fell from a thinner part of the atmosphere or it changed shape) will slow until it reaches terminal velocity.

No magic, just physics.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   


Here is a nice video. Now, if you listen, you will hear the explosions but there is nothing like this on video or audio with WTC 7. You can also see the charges from top to bottom. This is what a demolition looks like.

What the CD did was take away the resilience and resistance this building had and brought it down.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join