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.

 

Coincidents and Probabilities

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Tosskey
 


I'm not a structural engineer, just an average Joe with a fair amount of experience with masonry and concrete construction.

I just can't get past the claim that a jet was involved with these buildings, so maybe you can clear some things up. I've got a ton of questions about the WTC, but this is a simple one from the Pentagon which leaves this Joe scratching his head.

Below you can see the damage caused by the right wing as it struck between floors 1 and 2. Clearly the wing didn't penetrate this part of the facade. I just can't see any pictures of the wing that must have bounced off the wall. Furthermore, If you look lower, you'll see a representation of the wings shredding against the columns on the interior of the building. My question is a two part-er...first, where's the wing, and second...how could it bounce off the wall, as pictured below, and then show up in the graphic inside the building wreaking havoc at the same time its disintegrating against the "forest" of interior columns? The official story claims the wings folded back, but then they show the wings inside the building. How can this be...or is this a question I should save for someone with better credentials?

Page 29, Figure 5.12 Gashes from impact of right wing:

www.fire.nist.gov...

This is from page 47:

Figure 7.4

Idealized representation of impact on columns
www.fire.nist.gov...

Why didn't they consider explosives when they wrote their reports? Isn't the evidence better explained by explosives, considering there is no forensic evidence for a plane? Thanks for your help...maybe you can help me out with a few questions about the WTC later on.




posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I am not a structural engineer by any means either. Thus why I'm likely to believe the very detailed report compiled by hundreds of structural engineers. From reading your post though, it seems like you haven't read the report, or perhaps aren't remembering exactly what it says about the wings. In fact, what they say goes right along with what you are saying.

The report clearly states that not ALL the wing entered the building. The right wing was severed near the right engine by the second-floor slab (as depicted in the first image you posted).

"It is possible that less of the right wing than the left wing entered the building because the right wing struck the facade crossing the level of the second-floor slab.The strength of the second-floor slab in its own plane would have severed the right wing approximately at the location of the right engine."

As for your second image, it is NOT depicting the wings themselves causing damage to the columns, it is depicting the fuel stored IN the wings causing damage.

"A frame from a physics-based simulation of an idealized airplane loaded with fuel impacting a set of spirally reinforced concrete columns (by Hoffmann and Kilic of Purdue University) is shown in figure 7.4. Although completely notional, their analysis senses the deceleration of the airframe as indicated by the buckling of the fuselage.It is also interesting to note that the columns are shown to tear into the airframe but get destroyed by the mass of the fluid in the wing tanks, events confirmed by the distribution of the debris."

And as it says, the simulation is NOTIONAL. It's meant to show that the damage caused to spirally reinforced concrete columns is feasible. Don't let yourself get hung up on this one image.
edit on 13-3-2011 by Tosskey because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Tosskey
 


Okay, so they didn't look at the evidence either, they simply tried to explain how it was feasible to have been caused by a plane? Even that feasibility is suspect when you apply Newton's laws to the hypothesis. Why start with a premise that had no evidence to support it to begin with? Why weren't explosives considered?


F-16 pilot Dean Eckmann, who was asked to fly over the Pentagon and report on the extent of the damage, said that he suspected that the damage had been caused by “a big fuel tanker truck because of the amount of smoke and flames coming up and ... there was no airplane wreckage off to the side.



Registered nurse Eileen Murphy, observing the site from the ground, said: I knew it was a crash site before we got there, and I didn’t know what it was going to look like. I couldn’t imagine because the building is like rock solid. I expected to see the airplane, so I guess my initial impression was, “Where’s the plane? How come there’s not a plane?” I would have thought the building would have stopped it and somehow we would have seen something like part of, or half of the plane, or the lower part, or the back of the plane. So it was just a real surprise that the plane wasn’t there.



Having run to the crash site right after the strike, Engineer Steve DeChiaro, the president of a technology firm, said: "[W]hen I looked at the site, my brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building. No tail. No wings. No nothing.”



www.agoracosmopolitan.com...



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Tosskey
 


That wasnt an investigation. The report started with the assumption, that the building came down due to fire and damage and the job of the NIST comission was to tinker the most likely scenario that fits the predetermined cause. Kind of like the magic bullet that hit 5 people in the JFK assasination case.

Over the course of compiling the report, experts who started to ask question got sacked, not only from the comission, but in some cases from their jobs.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Jezus
 


No, hes pointing out the stupidity in the statement made by another poster. There is a difference.


No there isn't.

OSers want the planes fuselage to have gone through a reinforced wall, but when it comes to the wings, 'oh 500 mph yeah they would have disintegrated'.

Can't you see the contradiction?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ANOK
 


I thought the Towers were the tallest buildings imploded? Tell you what, check your script and get back to us.


No the towers were not imploded, do you know what an implosion demolition is?

It's when the center of the building is dropped ahead of the outer walls, as in WTC 7, this causes the walls to fall inwards to land on top of the debris pile.

The towers were too tall and thin for this method of demolition, that is why NONE of the towers landed in their footprint, which BTW would be required for the OS to be correct (And Bazants paper).

This is why you support the OS so easily, you are confused.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Always good for a laugh Anok. Sorry, Im not confused about anything in regards to 9/11. I deal in reality, not super duper top secret demolition teams using super secret demolition materials.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ANOK
 


Always good for a laugh Anok. Sorry, Im not confused about anything in regards to 9/11. I deal in reality, not super duper top secret demolition teams using super secret demolition materials.


Is that the best you can do?

You deal in reality? Physics IS reality mate, and if you can't get around the facts of physics then I'm not surprised you can't post anything of substance.

You made an assumption, I showed your assumption was wrong, why can't you face up to that and admit it, or prove me wrong? You have done neither, if you're not confused then what is the problem, you just automatically dismiss anything that puts the OS in question? Or do you not know enough to really debate what you're claiming?

I answered your question, why the BS?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You didn't "show" anything. You just keep posting the same tired, non-factual, statements.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Kinda fits classic definition of insanity

Keep doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.....



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Kinda fits classic definition of insanity

Keep doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.....


you mean like claiming this as proof of a plane:


Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Yankee451
 




911research.wtc7.net...

Here is section of exterior wall lying in street after being dislofged from the building






www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ANOK
 


You didn't "show" anything. You just keep posting the same tired, non-factual, statements.


According to you.

Show me what I am saying that is non-factual.

You all have a habit of saying this but no one has yet proved me wrong, so get at it or go bother someone else.

You made a claim, I countered your claim, and now you have nothing left so you keep making baseless opinionated nonsense claims about me.

Sorry I showed you up mate, but get over it and grow up.


edit on 3/14/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Haven't checked in in a while... I notice that no One came to show You where You erred... Hmmmm.

Don't suppose it's because there is nothing to say that shows that, eh?



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Yeah mate they always say you're wrong, but they never show, or prove, where you're wrong.

I'm only wrong because what I say doesn't fit the extremely limited, and incorrect, physics they are picking up from 911myths etc. Ask them anything outside of that box it is either ignored, twisted, or they just make something up and claim it as fact.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Yeah mate they always say you're wrong, but they never show, or prove, where you're wrong.


Funny how physics doesn't matter. We're wrong because...because...We're wrong. Ok.


I'm only wrong because what I say doesn't fit the extremely limited, and incorrect, physics they are picking up from 911myths etc. Ask them anything outside of that box it is either ignored, twisted, or they just make something up and claim it as fact.


You're only wrong because You point out the huge problems in the OS. We must accept Their word for how things happened and ignore physics. The universal laws are irrelevant. On that day, astronomical probabilities manifested, along with magic. Believe it or You're a terrorist.

Thanks for the reply!



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Try a couple of thought experiments.

Does an empty beer can bounch off your head? No it crushes. And at 500mph it wouldn't even resemble a can anymore.

What would a lawn mower blade do to a beer can? It would slice through it. At 500mph the parts of the wing that were not hitting a beam would shread off and continue on their path into the building. Hitting other poles and walls inside shredding even farther.

500mph carries a lot more energy than 65mph so you can't expect the final parts to look anything like a car crash. Even the Indy cars hitting at 200mph don't compare.

We are just used to planes cartwheeling in at 200mph not hitting something with rigid structures at 500mph.



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Try a couple of thought experiments.

Does an empty beer can bounch off your head? No it crushes. And at 500mph it wouldn't even resemble a can anymore.


Um... An empty beer can is NOT a good analogy. First, the beer can is not built in segments. Second, taking a small object and applying RELATIVE force to it would NOT be the same as applying the same force. For the can, a RELATIVE force would be more like anchoring the can firmly and shooting a BB at it. This may dent the can, likely penetrate it, but would NOT crush it or create an unidentifiable mishmash.

So... the physics of one, really has nothing to do with the other.


What would a lawn mower blade do to a beer can? It would slice through it. At 500mph the parts of the wing that were not hitting a beam would shread off and continue on their path into the building. Hitting other poles and walls inside shredding even farther.


Again, You are taking an absolute power and applying it inappropriately. A beer can is a poor thing to use as comparison, especially as You apply not a relative power to size, but an absolute in the larger scale applied to the smaller.


500mph carries a lot more energy than 65mph so you can't expect the final parts to look anything like a car crash. Even the Indy cars hitting at 200mph don't compare.


Agreed, but that does not mean that the buildings, hit sideways, would collapse virtually into their footprints 45 minutes to an hour after impact - if the power of the impact was going to take those buildings down...they would have fallen immediately after impact. All energy was long since dissipated when they chose - with molten metal like thermite on steel dripping from a corner (the corners would have been the COOLEST areas) - to disintegrate top to bottom.

If You believe this is physically possible without weakening the supports throughout the structures...You grasp little of physics, I would wager.


We are just used to planes cartwheeling in at 200mph not hitting something with rigid structures at 500mph.


Huh? Regardless of what other planes do and have done, physically, there is no way the towers & #7 could have fallen the way that they did without top to bottom weakening of the structure.

Methinks You are "experimenting" poorly in Your mind.



posted on Jul, 24 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Please explain how the beer can can cut through the concrete and brick fascia, and then shatter a forest of reinforced concrete columns, and then punch a large, circular hole in the reinforced concrete wall of the C ring light well, without leaving any traces of its passing.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


look here

A 12 oz can of beer traveling at 400mph hitting an object and coming to a stop in 1 foot exerts 2 tons of force.
Impressive isn't it. A can of beer can lift a car. Assuming it doesn't punch right through.

Ramp it up to thousands of pounds and see what you impact with.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


One 5lb brick would exert 13.38078911564626 tons. Very impressive indeed.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join