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: 20
16
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Lillydale
 


If you enter these forums and these threads you should be educated in the basics of 9/11. I am not posting any videos as you can find them yourself but

WTC 1
tilts to the left....


Falls straight down. What video are you watching? What do you think is crushing the bottom portion of the building? It certainly cannot be the part that topples down to the left because it...toppled to the left, right? No, it corrects itself and falls straight down. Try watching again.

WTC comes right at you...

Out of the entire journey, how much time would you say it spends coming right at me and how much time do would you say it spends falling STRAIGHT DOWN, AS IT DOES?


Any questions? I mean, someone else posted that BOTH did not tilt, right? C'mon guys. Get edjamacated.....


Educated by you? Please do explain how the building begins to tilt and then stops falling that way and stops itself from actually toppling over like you seem to think it did. This is pretty telling. It is quite clear that even you have to pretend you see things you do not in order to believe the "BS."

When you actually find a video of either building actually toppling over, please let me know. In the meantime, do not waste my time with old videos I have already seen plenty of, clearly demonstrating that the towers all fell straight down.




posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71


The WTC 7 was a Frankenstein of a building and it is lucky that more debris did not hit it or I feel it would have been lost earlier in the day.


Woa Woa

back up Buttercup

If your gonna defend the OS , you should at least know what your

defending

WTC7 according to NIST , came down to "office fires only"

Damage from debris was ruled out



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


All you're seeing tilt in that first vid, of WTC1, is the TV tower, the rest of the top is covered by smoke. So unless you have magic vision you can't see any of the building tilt.

Yes WTC 2 tilted, I keep saying this.

WTC7 didn't tilt, if it did it's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things here. What happened is the middle of the building fell first (the Penthouse kink), this is classic controlled demo technique. To make a building fall in it's own footprint you take away the resistance in the middle of the building first to force the walls to fall inwards, as apposed to outwards which would normally happen.

How does the buildings tilting, AT ALL, help your argument?

I keep asking the question, how does the top crush the building if it's tilting? The FACT that the collapses were symmetrical and complete proves your whole hypothesis wrong, that's why you're so desperate to believe they were not symmetrical collapses. Which means you are clueless as to the point of this, or your are not being honest. There is no argument the collapses were symmetrical and complete, otherwise we would see part of the building still standing after the collapses, like WTC5, 6 etc. But no WTC7 was a neat pile in it's own footprint and the two towers were spread everywhere.

You are screwing your own argument by arguing for the sake of arguing.
If the poster had said all three building tilted you would argue they didn't.

[edit on 1/8/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Sorry, but I am not arguing I am simply pointing out a fact that is shown in both videos I posted. Both towers fell to one side or tilted to one point prior to full collapse. Not sure what videos you were looking at but I see them falling over. Of course they fall upon themselves, I mean, where else are they to go except to find the path of least resistance, right? The WTC, for lack of a better word to explain this, was a big Jenga board.

If support gives out and the weight cannot be distributed it starts to lean and then fall toward the point of weakness. Now, when it is a 100 story tower, there is not much that can contain 30+ floors is the structural integrity is gone.

As far as WTC 7, it was bought down after debris from the WTC towers aided in fires which burned for more than 6 hours until it came down. Again, it was long enough to evacuate and save everyone so I would also have to agree that it was resilient enough to survive but not strong enough to live.



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
You're a pisser that is why I like reading your posts. Not semantics but perception. Very close cousins...

...The WTC 7 was a Frankenstein of a building and it is lucky that more debris did not hit it or I feel it would have been lost earlier in the day.


LOL my cat has more perception. 'Fell down on it's self', 'fell in on itself', what's the difference? Your use of terms is not known to be too accurate.

Oh yes esdad the expert on building design...


EVERY building made, no matter the design, has to be built to code just like any 'conventional' building (whatever that is because most high rise buildings are unique designs, you just don't know enough to put claims like that in context).



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


LOL you are digging yourself a deeper hole every time you post in your desperation to make your irrelevant point.

I even pointed out to you why it's irrelevant.

But anyway you're wrong, in that first vid the ONLY thing you can see in all the dust is the TV TOWER which tilted, that doesn't mean the whole top did, you are making assumptions again, jumping to conclusions.

You will have to point out, in detail, where you think the top tilts.

But again it doesn't matter, because the top tilting kills your whole argument anyway. The buildings ultimately fell symmetrically, that is obvious and undeniable. So the tops tilting makes this even more incredible, which is why I always bring up WTC2. Read my posts again and try to understand why the collapses were symmetrical regardless of what the tops did. The top may have tilted but the rest of the buildings, the actual collapse, was symmetrical for the reasons I explained (which you obviously didn't understand or bother reading).

Instead of just arguing semantics back and forth how about researching this stuff without bias, and not from a 9-11 web site. Try reading a physics book.

[edit on 1/8/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Go read a book. Man, you got me. Nice ending barb there. If you cannot see the building tilt that you are blind. It is not up to me to show anything as I already presented it in a video as requested but of course it will be thrown aside and you will get your 4 stars from your fans. Doesn't change facts. I am not posting in desperation but actually hoping someone will see what the truth is and stop trying to find nanothermite in dust and tell stories of laser beams melting steel and CIA ninjas wiring up the WTC with micronukes or whatever theory suffices at the time.

You said you pointed out something irrelevant but I am not sure if you meant something you don't want to comprehend and wrap your head around. What is irrelevant?

No assumptions, no conclusions, just some easy to find fact.

South Tower, WTC 2, was the second hit and the first to go down. Why is that? First, it was hit lower and had to sustain and distributed a greater load. Minutes prior to collapse there are accounts from occupants relaying that floors were starting to collapse under 90. This was also reported by NYPD air as they saw pieces starting to fall off the towers from within the smoke.

North tower, WTC 1, was actually better off since it was hit almost 15-20 stories higher. However, it was reported minutes prior to collapse that it was leaning and it was buckling in the SW corner which just happened to be the direction it slid toward the part of the building that was weakest(south).

Symmetrical? This is a word that some people like to use because it is big and sounds cool. Do you know what it means? It makes no sense when you guys use it to show a 'perfect' collapse because it was not.



This is a debris field. If it was, by definition, symmetrical, this would not have happened.

Nor would this have happened...



So, tell me, who needs to go read a book?



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 

After watching all the videos taken that day on 911, even a fifth grader can tell yeah that all three WTC fell straight down.
This is not natural, everyone can see the WTC were not just falling but, exploding outward and upward. The only thing that can make this happen and sciences can prove it, is DEMOLITION.

Laugh all you like, we know the truth hurts.


I am not posting in desperation but actually hoping someone will see what the truth is


What truth? The OS truth that you keep peddling.
The OS has already been proven a lie years ago, most people already know that.

People want to see real evidences and the entire OS lacks all evidences and that is a fact.


stop trying to find nanothermite in dust and tell stories of laser beams melting steel and CIA ninjas wiring up the WTC with micronukes or whatever theory suffices at the time.


Most people do not subscribe to your ridiculous claims.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71



Symmetrical? This is a word that some people like to use because it is big and sounds cool. Do you know what it means? It makes no sense when you guys use it to show a 'perfect' collapse because it was not.



This is a debris field. If it was, by definition, symmetrical, this would not have happened.



Gosh, I really hate to be the one to do this to you but you need to look up "symmetry" again. Your illustration is even symmetrical, you know the one you are holding up to explain how it was NOT symmetrical. Yeah, even your proof it was not, IS symmetrical. Obviously from your explanation of why you do not like the word being used, you do now know what means, how it applies, or why it matters so much,

Not one of those buildings fell over sideways. You are either blatantly lying or on something really fun. The very thing you try to call tilt, even destroys your argument because the top section that does begin to lean, STOPS LEANING AND PROCEEDS STRAIGHT DOWN. Can you explain why it STOPS leaning as it is starting to topple over sideways? What would cause that?



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

The buildings ultimately fell symmetrically, that is obvious and undeniable.


The lower part? Sure. What's surprising about that?

It was undamaged before the collapse began, so it would be reasonable to assume that when a global collapse happens, it will happen symmetrically.

Something like this:

1- the global collapse begins with the top tilting - and this is the part that truthers ignore - AND descending.

2- some of the top moves outside the ext columns, and will be unable to impact the floors below. Some remains inside the ext columns and does indeed impact the floors below.

3- the floors are unable to resist the weight in motion and fail at their connections to both the core columns and the ext columns.

4- the floor failure continues downward, destroying floor after floor in rapid succession. This is seen by the air being forced out through the windows, while at the same time it is seen that the ext columns are still there.

5- without the floors to brace them, the ext columns peel away like a banana skin.

6- the core columns are also unbraced, and so some of them are immeadiately stripped away by debris. Lower in the structure, the columns are stronger, and are better able to resist the falling debris. This is expected and seen in video evidence as commonly known as the "spires".

7- But the core columns are not immoveable bricks, and as seen in the "spire" video evidence, can be seen swaying as the collapse is ending. They are not able to resist this swaying, and as expected, they also fail.


So what would cause the lower protions to fail assymmetrically?

It is seen that the airplane damage and fires caused the top to fail assymmetrically, as expected. That type of damage is not seen in the lower parts.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


I knew you didn't know what it meant, even after I posted the definition.

Thanx for clearing it up Lillydale.

Yes that illustration clearly shows the symmetry of the collapses, thanx.

Did you learn something today esdad?



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The lower part? Sure. What's surprising about that?
It was undamaged before the collapse began, so it would be reasonable to assume that when a global collapse happens, it will happen symmetrically.


What was damaged bellow the point of aircraft impact and fires?

And no it is not reasonable to assume global collapse, how many more time do I have to explain RESISTANCE! Read my explanations again and try to understand it.


1- the global collapse begins with the top tilting - and this is the part that truthers ignore - AND descending.


How have I ignored it, my whole posts have been about the tilting top of WTC2, you obviously have comprehensions issues.

Yes descending through the path of MOST resistance, something you obviously do not understand, even after having explained it to you a dozen time in the last few pages of this thread. Learn to read, verify what you've read, and put it into context.


2- some of the top moves outside the ext columns, and will be unable to impact the floors below. Some remains inside the ext columns and does indeed impact the floors below.


Why do you ASSUME falling 'remains' would keep on falling when it meets RESISTANCE from UNDAMAGED building structure? Back to that PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE physics problem again, how do you account for that? You have yet to account for the lack of resistance and just saying it was inevitable shows your lack of understanding. You are just parroting what NIST said without questioning it, or understanding it.

You admit not even all the floors were able to impact lower floors, which means even less weight was available to do this magic trick.


3- the floors are unable to resist the weight in motion and fail at their connections to both the core columns and the ext columns.


Do you have proof of this, because NIST doesn't. It's an assumption.
Why would the building structure suddenly not be able to hold up the weight it had been doing since it was built? It was designed to hold more than twice it's own weight, it's called a safety margin and can be up to 5 times it's weight. Also the claim that floors became completely detached from the columns, enabling them to fall onto floors bellow is another ASSUMPTION, there is no proof of this.

And again WTC2 and it's tilt, that you all admit to, debunks the hypothesis you're trying to push. Do I have to explain the physics of bodies in motion again?


4- the floor failure continues downward, destroying floor after floor in rapid succession. This is seen by the air being forced out through the windows, while at the same time it is seen that the ext columns are still there.


Again wild assumptions. There would be no compressed air to force out of windows, the whole building was open to the air as it crumbled apart. Windows would not be the path of LEAST resistance for the air to escape through.


5- without the floors to brace them, the ext columns peel away like a banana skin.


Hmmmm so the floors both became detached from the columns and at the same time pulled the columns down with them? Explain that one.


6- the core columns are also unbraced, and so some of them are immeadiately stripped away by debris. Lower in the structure, the columns are stronger, and are better able to resist the falling debris. This is expected and seen in video evidence as commonly known as the "spires".


Rubbish there was NO resistance as I keep telling you, resistance slows things down, there was no slowing of the collapse wave. The 'spires' if you look closely turned to dust in mid air, how do you explain that?


7- But the core columns are not immoveable bricks, and as seen in the "spire" video evidence, can be seen swaying as the collapse is ending. They are not able to resist this swaying, and as expected, they also fail.


You're saying bricks are stronger than steel? They're not swaying they are turning to dust. But what do you expect, most of the columns were stripped away and you think it swaying proves your hypothesis?


It is seen that the airplane damage and fires caused the top to fail assymmetrically, as expected. That type of damage is not seen in the lower parts.


Not sure what the hell that means. The building as a whole fell symmetrically regardless of what the top did, which is why it is a PROBLEM. A collapse that seemingly started as a chaotic natural asymmetrical collapse (WTC2 tilting top) became a complete global symmetrical collapse, and from your spin of this fact shows you don't understand the significance of this, and physics in general.

[edit on 1/9/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

What was damaged bellow the point of aircraft impact and fires?


Nothing. We agree on this.


Yes descending through the path of MOST resistance,


Yep, in the direction that gravity dictates that it must move.


Why do you ASSUME falling 'remains' would keep on falling when it meets RESISTANCE from UNDAMAGED building structure?


Because the weight in motion overcomes the ability of the floors to stop its movement.


You have yet to account for the lack of resistance


If you agree that the falling debris in air represents *true* lack of resistance, then you must also agree that the building is in fact giving resistance.


You admit not even all the floors were able to impact lower floors, which means even less weight was available to do this magic trick.


Doesn't matter if less than 100% of the above structure falls on the floors. If 2000 tons in motion at velocity x is sufficent to fail the floors, then as long as 2000 tons remina inside the ext columns, it is enough to continue the collapse.


Do you have proof of this, because NIST doesn't. It's an assumption.


Actually, they studied the columns that FEMA collected and have a table of just how the connections failed. Some of them had the bolts fail. Others had the welds to the columns fail. Still others had the bolts ripped out of the connections. So you're either lying or uneducated about the realities of the report you're railing against.


Why would the building structure suddenly not be able to hold up the weight it had been doing since it was built?


Hilarious question, especially after your call to others about lack of knowledge re: physics. The "building", and specifically the floors, are designed to hold a static load. Once debris is in motion, it overwhelms the floor and connection capacity.


Also the claim that floors became completely detached from the columns, enabling them to fall onto floors bellow is another ASSUMPTION, there is no proof of this.


Again, NIST has a detailed report of their study of connection failure modes.


Windows would not be the path of LEAST resistance for the air to escape through.


It doesn't need to be. It just needs to be *a* path for the air to escape.


Hmmmm so the floors both became detached from the columns and at the same time pulled the columns down with them? Explain that one.


Easy. I never claimed that.


Rubbish there was NO resistance as I keep telling you, resistance slows things down,


Correction - resistance will slow things down to less than g acceleration. And again, if you agree that the ext columns falling through air exhibit what "NO resistance" looks like, then you must also admit that the building gave resistance.


there was no slowing of the collapse wave.


Correct. There was no "slowing of the collapse wave". However, it did accelerate at less than g. Which proves resistance given by the building's components.


The 'spires' if you look closely turned to dust in mid air, how do you explain that?


Facepalm...........


But what do you expect, most of the columns were stripped away and you think it swaying proves your hypothesis?


No, merely that the unsupported core columns couldn't stay up without their bracing.


The building as a whole fell symmetrically regardless of what the top did, which is why it is a PROBLEM.


You of course mean the lower, undamaged parts.

So what WOULD cause the lower part to fail assymetrically? Don't avoid the question.

You say it is "a PROBLEM", but fail to explain exactly why an undamaged part would fail assymmetrically. Your only complaint so far regarding the lower part is the less than g acceleration collapse wave, which you mistakenly believe to be "no slowing".


A collapse that seemingly started as a chaotic natural asymmetrical collapse


Correct, since the plane impacts and fires resulted in assymetrical damage.

Assymetrical damage = assymetrical collapse. This is expected.


became a complete global symmetrical collapse


Correct, since the lower part was undamaged.

No damage = symmetrical collapse. This is expected.


and physics in general.


Says the guy who said, "You have yet to account for the lack of resistance ".

And continues to get it all wrong when he doesn't realize that anything accelerating at less than g is in fact encountering resistance.

[edit on 9-1-2010 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


LOL I'm not even gonna bother going through that lot, as I've already explained everything I would just be repeating myself.

Are you just here to mess with people, or do you really just not get it?

Physics is not your strong point...You might want to check out something like this...

www.cn.edu...



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


What is there to learn? IT DID Not fall straight down. You are all trying to use a big word to make sit sound scientific. Those big read arrows are debris which makes it NOT a symmetrical collapse. How about the pieces of the building that are accelerating faster than the rest of the debris? THis is showing that it was NOT a symmetrical collapse.

Again, I do not need an explanation on science. Lilly and ANOK and impressme all want to believe something that is not there. WTC 7 feel symmetrically because it did not lean nor break off at any point. The WTC 1 and 2 did.

However, lets go start another thread on that since this thread is still, although you have hijacked yet another one you three, about resilience which the towers had to take the hit but not survive.

You guys may think you are physics wizards but your math sucks. Symmetrical collapse is the new thermite....



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Esdad, here's another illustration of the WTC debris distribution:





sym·me·try

Exact correspondence of form and constituent configuration on opposite sides of a dividing line or plane or about a center or an axis.



The walls peeled outwards from each tower in all 4 directions, and on top of that, the general debris spread as shown above by FEMA is circular, which is as symmetrical as you can possibly get. A circle has an infinite number of symmetrical divisions.

And if we were to find the average place where all the debris fell (and yes, you can do that with mass, and it's called the "center of gravity" -- look it up) it would be in the footprints of the buildings. Which re-emphasizes the fact that the debris did not lean particularly one direction over another, but went "straight down" on average but actually was ejected pretty equally away from the buildings in all directions, as FEMA even shows.

Yet there was hardly any debris in the footprints themselves, meaning no pancake. No pancaked floors at the bottom = no pancake collapse, but instead, as everyone has clearly been able to see for going on 9 years, the buildings exploded outwards in all directions. The floors did not physically "fall" straight down into the footprints.

Technical definitions can complicate the conversation but what everyone should be clear enough on:

1) The center of gravity for the debris spread, according to FEMA's diagram above, and according to what we all actually saw, should have been in or very close to within the buildings' footprints. Which is to say, the buildings did not lean in one direction or another predominantly over the others during either collapse, and the primary component of motion for each collapse was vertical.

2) The actual debris did NOT fall straight down into the footprints but was exploded outwards from the buildings in all directions (and did NOT lean outwards, but was physically separated and sailed out through the air as can be seen), making the center of gravity still technically within the footprints but the actual debris was by great majority not in the footprints.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
"Why would the building structure suddenly not be able to hold up the weight it had been doing since it was built?"

"Hilarious question, especially after your call to others about lack of knowledge re: physics. The "building", and specifically the floors, are designed to hold a static load. Once debris is in motion, it overwhelms the floor and connection capacity."

So, let me get this straight. The building maintained its structural integrity after withstanding the impact of an alleged 350,000 pound aircraft traveling at rate of speed of approximately 500 MPH. In contrast, the building's structural components shredded apart and caused a global collapse when much lighter debris at a much slower rate of speed than the aircraft fell on it?

Hilarious answer.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK
 


What is there to learn? IT DID Not fall straight down. You are all trying to use a big word to make sit sound scientific. Those big read arrows are debris which makes it NOT a symmetrical collapse. How about the pieces of the building that are accelerating faster than the rest of the debris? THis is showing that it was NOT a symmetrical collapse.

Again, I do not need an explanation on science. Lilly and ANOK and impressme all want to believe something that is not there. WTC 7 feel symmetrically because it did not lean nor break off at any point. The WTC 1 and 2 did.


Could you do me the kind of favor of posting some video of the buildings toppling over? I have seen a lot of videos of the towers falling and none of them seem to be following this weird topple thingy that you and Joey see. Just post it and that should shut everyone up real nice.



posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
OK I think they're trying to say because debris was thrown outwards that the building collapse wasn't symmetrical?

Which is either them just playing with semantics, or they really just don't get what is meant by symmetrical in this context?

So I'll explain it one more time, the buildings, all three, fell with each corner falling at the same rate (within seconds) and the debris ejecting, from the two towers, equally in each direction (as shown in esdads illustration, thanks esdad).

Now the problem with this is if there was ANY resistance AT ALL, even slightly, there would be a slowing, or even stopping, of the collapse at the point of resistance. If that resistance was just say on one corner, then the mass would fall to the path that offers NO resistance (path of least resistance). We don't see this any time during the collapse, the collapse wave is smooth and uninterrupted until there is no more building to collapse. You don't find that unlikely? And where did your floors that did the crushing go? (see how many new things keep popping up that you have not addressed with your hypothesis). At what point did the crushing top floors start crushing itself, you know after it had just crushed the rest of the building?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join