It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 25
16
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 08:44 PM

I have no idea what you're looking for.

Roger stated that the smoke means that the fires are oxygen starved, and thus must be cool fires.

I disagree on 3 points:

1- the smoke means nothing, according to experts

2- since the smoke means nothing, this doesn't mean that the fires were oxygen starved.

3- even if there was limited ventilation, it would be bad for the buildings, since it is a proven fact - proven through experimental burns - that limited ventilation results in longer burn times and higher temps inside the buildings.

So if you're dissatisfied with my answers, then iggy it is.....

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 08:46 PM

Originally posted by Nutter

The very fact it is opposing the motion means it is decelerating.

Ok, so you're still confused.

Good luck.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 08:53 PM
Deceleration:

(countable) The amount by which a speed or velocity decreases (and so a scalar quantity or a vector quantity).
The brakes produce a deceleration of 10 metres per second per second.

en.wiktionary.org...

Notice it only says the amount by which a speed or velocity decreases? Not the overall outcome of the combined forces acting upon an object.

Let's take the brakes in the example above. If the motor is still running at 20 metres per second per second, the total vector sum will be 10 m/s/s acceleration.

But does that mean that the brakes were not causing deceleration?

20 does not equal 10. So, therefore, the brakes did supply deceleration (resistance) even though the overall outcome was the vehicle accelerating.

Understand yet?

[edit on 27-1-2010 by Nutter]

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:01 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

The observation of a lack of resistance is not simply based on the time of the collapse, it's based on the fact that the collapses were SYMMETRICAL and global, nothing was in the way of the collapse wave as observed by the lack of resistance. I thought I explained it pretty well.

Any resistance in any point of the mechanism will cause the collapse to become asymmetrical as objects ALWAYS fall to the path of least resistance.

Is that simple enough for you to understand? Please read what I've said and try not to jump to a reactionary conclusion. You don't have to believe me but you should really go check what I'm saying, without going to look for a stock argument to reply with that you really don't understand. And using my vague insults to debunkers back at me really doesn't work, it just proves how you all lack imagination and can only parrot what you see or read. Sorry if that's harsh but it's true, the proof is in this thread right here. You must like getting b-slapped all the time...

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:13 PM

NOBODY had claimed it was FREE-FALL, why do you all still keep claiming this?

It has always been NEAR free-fall, big ass difference...

But it's an irrelevant point, the building fell through the path of most resistance which would have increased as the building fell. Resistance would not have been symmetrical (not possible in a chaotic system), which means if ANY resistance was met the collapse would not have been symmetrical throughout it's collapse.

But you all still fail to answer how the towers collapsed in the first place as I don't buy into any of your hypothesis. Heat has to transfer through air to reach all that steel blah blah...You guys can't even explain how it's done, or how it could have been done to so much steel in so little time. If the lower floors were not damaged, or weakened by fire, what happened to the resistance? Why didn't the top of WTC2 continue it's angular momentum (and pls don't say there wasn't any again).

Now remember boys and girls even NIST rejects the 'pancake theory' your hypothesis describes.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:21 PM

Again you prove you don't know how to put information into context.

An oil fire will be black regardless, and yes the temps are probably relatively cool. Big bad flames does necessarily meas the fire is hotter.

Grey smoke that turns darker IS a sign of a cooling fire, THAT is what we observe at the towers, NOT burning oil trucks, but furniture, thus the grey smoke to begin with.

Man it would be easier teaching a class of 3 year olds...

And it's juts another irrelevant point, because regardless if the fuel cooled or not, it would still not transfer enough heat energy to cause failure of thousands of tons of construction steel, KNOWN provable FACT, you just all refuse to do the necessary work to prove it to yourselves.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:22 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

The observation of a lack of resistance

Quantify this statement, since you've now changed it, hopefully cuz you've realized you're wrong.

Before, you've said ZERO resistance. Now, LACK of resistance, which is vague.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:24 PM

Again you prove you don't know how to put information into context.

A truck fire will be black regardless from oil and tires etc., and yes the temps are probably relatively cool. Big bad flames does not necessarily mean the fire is hotter. A bad assumption shows you don't know the physics of fires.

You're missing the point, as usual....

Grey smoke that turns to black IS a sign of a cooling fire, THAT is what we observe at the towers, NOT burning oil trucks, but furniture, thus the grey smoke to begin with.

Man it would be easier teaching a class of 3 year olds...

And it's juts another irrelevant point, because regardless if the fuel cooled or not, it would still not transfer enough heat energy to cause failure of thousands of tons of construction steel, KNOWN provable FACT, you just all refuse to do the necessary work to prove it to yourselves.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:26 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Heat has to transfer through air to reach all that steel blah blah...You guys can't even explain how it's done,

Do you dispute these experimental burns?

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ANOK

The observation of a lack of resistance

Quantify this statement, since you've now changed it, hopefully cuz you've realized you're wrong.
Before, you've said ZERO resistance. Now, LACK of resistance, which is vague.

Huh they mean the same darn thing, semantics...

There was NO resistance, and pls don't bring up the silly free-fall argument, it's not what I'm talking about as I already explained.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:30 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Any resistance in any point of the mechanism will cause the collapse to become asymmetrical as objects ALWAYS fall to the path of least resistance.

No.

Objects always fall down - the direction that gravity dictates.

After impact, they may be deflected to other paths.

If what you're saying is true, then you should feel safe holding a bowling ball overhead, since according to you, it will not drop on your head, since that is the path of higher resistance vs missing your head.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:34 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

I'm not sure what you want me to look at there, could you please be more specific about what I should look at, and how it effects what I have said.

From what I can see though it seems you again are not understanding what I've said. I just asked you to explain how thermal energy is transferred, and then explain how it transferred so fast and so completely to cause the whole structure of the building to fail (it had to or there would be resistance as I explained already, not fall rate but symmetry and the path of least blah blah...)

Again your claims when put in context fail...So what will you do? Change the claims probably...

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:40 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

I have no idea what you're looking for.

The answer to my question. If you are not sure how the written word works, let me help. I asked you a question in a post. You avoided it and started doing this song and dance on the side. THE QUESTION IS STILL THERE. I know you were hoping that dodging it would make it go away or something but are you now honestly going to tell me you cannot go back about 3 posts and see the very question I asked and simply answer it? Please do not make me show you how foolish you are being by reposting it because you cannot find it.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
No.

Objects always fall down - the direction that gravity dictates.

After impact, they may be deflected to other paths.

If what you're saying is true, then you should feel safe holding a bowling ball overhead, since according to you, it will not drop on your head, since that is the path of higher resistance vs missing your head.

Be honest. Are you purposely playing dumb now or what? You know that those two comparisons are not at all close. What you should saying is that MOST of your body will be safe because the head will cause resistance and deflect the bowling ball. The head will still get hurt but the ball will not continue straight down through my spine.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Objects always fall down - the direction that gravity dictates.

Are you serious? You really need to take some basic physics, you're missing a few other physical properties and not taking then into account.

Sounds familiar huh fellow truthers?

After impact, they may be deflected to other paths.

What may? The buildings? So why then did this not happen?

If what you're saying is true, then you should feel safe holding a bowling ball overhead, since according to you, it will not drop on your head, since that is the path of higher resistance vs missing your head.

Oh dear what are you on about? The undamaged floors are the resistance. If that ball hits my head it might break my head, but if the ball fell on another ball it would meet RESISTANCE and fall to the path of LEAST resistance. The tower were steel falling on steel not a harder heavier object falling on a lighter softer one.

You my friend are really spinning my head...

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:47 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

I did.

Thx for the laugh.

It is readily apparent you have a limited knowledge of physics.

A wise man once said something to the effect of, "'tis better to say nothing, and have people believe you to be a fool, than open it and prove it."

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

You keep saying this yet it is me explaining the physics not you.

So please back up your baseless claim and answer the questions you keep dodging with nothing but insults copied from my posts. If you can prove I'm wrong do it, I already proved you wrong so good luck with that.

Admit it you're flailing, you have no clue how to address my posts, the proof is in the thread.

I am 100% confident that you will fail again.

[edit on 1/27/2010 by ANOK]

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:54 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

What may? The buildings? So why then did this not happen?

The individual parts certainly did just that. Did you miss it? There was something like a 600 ft circle of debris around the tower.

The undamaged floors are the resistance.

Exactly!!

The tower were steel falling on steel not a harder heavier object falling on a lighter softer one.

Now you've changed your statement again. I just quoted you saying (correctly) that the undamaged floors provided the resistance.

Do some math, and figure out what the %age of the 206' x 206' footprint was covered by the floors. I'll guess it's something like 99% or so vs 1% steel columns.

So 99% of the debris will fall on the floors.

Now all you need to do is answer the question about whether or not the floors had the capacity to halt the debris.

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:56 PM

Originally posted by ANOK
I already proved you wrong so good luck with that.

Admit it you're flailing, you have no clue how to address my posts, the proof is in the thread.

No, I already proved you wrong. the proof is in the thread.

See how easy that is?

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 09:57 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Now you've changed your statement again. I just quoted you saying (correctly) that the undamaged floors provided the resistance.

Do some math, and figure out what the %age of the 206' x 206' footprint was covered by the floors. I'll guess it's something like 99% or so vs 1% steel columns.

So 99% of the debris will fall on the floors.

Now all you need to do is answer the question about whether or not the floors had the capacity to halt the debris.

The floors were not what was supporting the building. Debris falling on the floors will damage the floors but not take out the support since the floors were not the support system of the building. Even if what you were trying to say was a little bit true, that would be a pancake collapse and we all know that is not what happened.

top topics

16