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.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Too bad for you that engineering and logic trump common sense. Every time.
For the sake of this discussion, Bonez has accepted as probable that NIST is correct. A quick review of his posts would confirm that. I suggest you start there.
There's plenty of evidence. Videos of the planes striking at certain places. Speeds can be determined to within a range also. Weight of the plane was determined. This gives the ke at impact. then known engineering factors are used to determine just how much of that ke would be expended against the ext steel columns, breaking concrete slabs, etc. Any remaining ke would be available to do work against the core columns. Again, this is all outlined in the NIST report. Very sad that you were unaware of this evidence. It's clearly spelled out for those that are interested.
Ah, so then YOU have a technical paper that determines just how symmetrical the collapses were, and an engineering description of just how assymmetrical the collapses should have been then, right?
So, like Bonez, all we have is your personal statement that it fell wrong.
Originally posted by ANOK
You can see from the videos that the collapses were symmetrical, it's ridiculous to argue they weren't, and it's known physics that tells us objects always fall to the path of least resistance. Using this common knowledge it's not hard to conclude that a symmetrical collapse is not possible unless controlled (All resistance to the collapse removed ahead of the collapse wave).
With very few exceptions, a tall office building (i.e., 20+ stories) cannot be made to tip over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because the supporting elements in a typical human-inhabited building are spread over a larger area to accommodate living and work space, they are not nearly as rigid, and the laws of gravity cause them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped off center to a certain point. Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle in designing upper-floor charge patterns to maximize breakage and in predicting debris drop zones.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
I'd suggest that you go back to school and stay awake through Physics class. By your statement there should have only been five holes in the tower.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
Why did the collapse start at the impact points?
Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
The problem with using basic physics here is that the towers were not a couple of cardboard boxes, they were complex structures. You can't expect buildings that large to hold together when they begin to tip.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
You claim explosives were used. Answer one question. Why did the collapse start at the impact points? Until you can answer that one, your explosives theory is manure.
Originally posted by ANOK
If the building was rigged all over and the planes destroyed what 'explosives' were on the floors they hit then the next set of 'explosives', just bellow the impact points, would be where the sequence started, thus looking like the collapse started at the impact points.
(BTW I use 'explosive' very loosely, please don't focus on that OK?)
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I don't know what you mean by "finally". I've been saying the same thing throughout this thread and the entire 9/11 forum.
An analysis was done in 1964 and archived with the Port Authority which stated:
There was only local damage without substantial damage to either building.
I also work with aluminum and steel all day, every day. We cut them with torches and plasma cutters, we bend them, form them, you name it. I know aluminum's reaction to steel and vice versa. You apparently don't.
Originally posted by ANOK
I also said if the columns were severed it would still make no difference as the building can stand losing 15% of it's load bearing columns and not collapse.
It's unlikely central columns were severed as claimed by NIST
The claim is fire weakened the steel to failure, the aircraft damage is irrelevant at this point.
If the A/C damage was really significant then the towers should have fell towards that damage
they fell straight down into the path of most resistance
meaning the big hole in the side of the building caused by the planes had no effect on the collapse.
there is NO evidence that the planes severed central columns, period!
Sorry but all the KE of the planes was absorbed by the first impact with the facade.
C'mon man this is where your common sense should come in. You can see from the videos that the collapses were symmetrical
it's known physics that tells us objects always fall to the path of least resistance.
No I have physics and it's correct application in this context.
Originally posted by ANOK
A)that's why WTC1&2 ejected most their debris outside of their footprints.
B)ANY amount of resistance would send debris away from that point as it finds the path of least resistance,
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Get it straight - it is a combination of impact damage and fire damage that resulted in the collapse. IOW, BOTH are relevant.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I believe you are the one that should "get it straight". NIST's calculations are theories and computer models. None of their report is 100% factual. Once you come to terms with that, then you might not put so much stock into it.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I believe you are the one that should "get it straight". NIST's calculations are theories and computer models.
None of their report is 100% factual.
Once you come to terms with that, then you might not put so much stock into it.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
None of their report is 100% factual.
Oh really?
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Well, since I have proven you have no idea what you're talking about above, it's also proven that your opinion about the report is garbage.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by ANOK
A)that's why WTC1&2 ejected most their debris outside of their footprints.
B)ANY amount of resistance would send debris away from that point as it finds the path of least resistance,
Result A satisfies expectation B.
End of argument.
Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by _BoneZ_
You claim explosives were used. Answer one question. Why did the collapse start at the impact points? Until you can answer that one, your explosives theory is manure.
Originally posted by kj6754
The detonations were started near the impact points.
The planes and subsequent crashes were just a cover for what was really planned that day (the top-down demolition of the towers).
Originally posted by JIMC5499
Ok. So how did they know where the planes were going to impact?
Originally posted by JIMC5499
What prevented the sympathetic detonation of the previously planted explosives?
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
None of their report is 100% factual.
Oh really?
Yes, really. How do you think they determined how many core columns were damaged?
Originally posted by ANOK
How many more times do I have to explain the problem of the symmetry of the collapses?
Result A contradicts your 'pancake collapse' hypotheses, debris falling outside the footprint is not available to crush the building.
Regardless of where the debris was ejected it would still offer resistance until it was ejected.
Again all the debris from the collapse was ejected equally in all directions
this is called symmetry which is not possible from a chaotic uncontrolled collapse.