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.

 

In Support Of The Twin Towers Collapsing Due To Fire .

page: 19
10
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Timber joists and you compare to steel, apples with apples or its NOT the same steel with steel not steel with wood!!!!!




posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


All 3 buildings fell with all four corners falling at the same time.



Your edited quote above all for corners fell at same time explain this

1.bp.blogspot.com...

Falls to one side to start with at corner of impact point.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I think he was more meaning that the bottom floors all collapsed at the same time.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ANOK


All 3 buildings fell with all four corners falling at the same time.



Your edited quote above all for corners fell at same time explain this

1.bp.blogspot.com...

Falls to one side to start with at corner of impact point.


First off WTC2 did not tilt to the impact point, the impact point was the southwest face the tilt was towards the southeast.

911research.wtc7.net...

Once the top of WTC2 stopped tilting the building still fell symmetrically.

How do you explain the tilt in the first place? How did that top, that was undergoing angular momentum, suddenly stop it's angular momentum and fall straight down? How could it crush lower floors symmetrically when it was not sitting 'true' and under angular momentum?

One of the first things your learn in engineering school is that if you want something to go straight down then the force has to be even on all points or otherwise it will not go straight down. Try pushing anything straight down while pushing more on one side. Really simple concept that you seem to miss. That top could not have done the crushing, the bottom section of the tower had to have had the resistance removed for it to drop like that.

[edit on 6/3/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ANOK


All 3 buildings fell with all four corners falling at the same time.



Your edited quote above all for corners fell at same time explain this

1.bp.blogspot.com...

Falls to one side to start with at corner of impact point.


Once the top of WTC2 stopped tilting the building still fell symmetrically.

How do you explain the tilt in the first place? How did that top, that was undergoing angular momentum, suddenly stop it's angular momentum and fall straight down? How could it crush lower floors symmetrically when it was not sitting 'true' and under angular momentum?

One of the first things your learn in engineering school is that if want something to go straight down then the force has to be even on all points or otherwise it will not go straight down. Try pushing anything straight down while pushing more on one side. Really simple concept that you seem to miss. That top could not have done the crushing, the bottom section of the tower had to have had the resistance removed for it to drop like that.



You say a lot of awesome things. Some of the make perfect sense to me. Some of them make no sense to me. I have no way of confirming if you are 100% correct or 100% incorrect. I would greatly appreciate it if you would cite your sources for your information so that I am able to determine if you logic is accurate or inaccurate.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Sorry, it's totaled plausible argumentative, not fact. It's disgusted me to see people will believe this plausible story. Watch it and listen to witnesses. I can't wait for one day a brave person will reveal the facts that government can't lie anymore.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

I would greatly appreciate it if you would cite your sources for your information so that I am able to determine if you logic is accurate or inaccurate.


There really is no single source I can give you. There are so many concepts involved.

In the past I used to post a lot of sources for the physics, real physics sources not 9-11 sites, but the debunkers either just ignored them or didn't understand them.

But I decided I'm not here to hold hands, if you want to check what I say then do your own research like I have for the last 7 years or so...

Start with learning why and how the central core was built, and why it was incredibly strong and would resist collapse. It's a pretty common engineering design and known to do the job it was designed for, resisting the collapse of itself.

Most people here seem to post based on their feelings, or assumptions, or what they've been told by whomever, not on real world physics or their own experience and background.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

I would greatly appreciate it if you would cite your sources for your information so that I am able to determine if you logic is accurate or inaccurate.


There really is no single source I can give you. There are so many concepts involved.

In the past I used to post a lot of sources for the physics, real physics sources not 9-11 sites, but the debunkers either just ignored them or didn't understand them.

But I decided I'm not here to hold hands, if you want to check what I say then do your own research like I have for the last 7 years or so...

Start with learning why and how the central core was built, and why it was incredibly strong and would resist collapse. It's a pretty common engineering design and known to do the job it was designed for, resisting the collapse of itself.

Most people here seem to post based on their feelings, or assumptions, or what they've been told by whomever, not on real world physics or their own experience and background.



I agree that the central core was strong. I also believe that several of the 44 central beams were destroyed in the airplane impact. If you destroy 7-20 of the cetral core beams with a 500 mile per hour 110-150 ton airplane then the buidling is not nearly as strong as it once was.

web.mit.edu...

Holding hands and presenting evidence to support your theories are two totally different things.

"Most people here seem to post based on their feelings, or assumptions, or what they've been told by whomever, not on real world physics or their own experience and background"

When you post and don't cite any sources I feel like you're posting based on your feelings, assumptions, or what you've been told by whomever, not on real world physics or your own experience and background. If you're interested enough to make these posts then you would be interested enough to spread the evidence thats supports the many different demolition theories.

If the WTC towers didn't have any resistance to their collapse then why did they fall slower than the free falling debri?

The only way that I know to fall slower than free fall speed is to have some sort of resistance to the force of gravity.


Then we are taken back to the statement that the collapse could not have been symmetrical AND had resistance.



[edit on 4-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
I agree that the central core was strong. I also believe that several of the 44 central beams were destroyed in the airplane impact. If you destroy 7-20 of the cetral core beams with a 500 mile per hour 110-150 ton airplane then the buidling is not nearly as strong as it once was.


Not really true, the nature of the design of the core would not allow damage to one area to cause undamaged areas to lose their strength.
Building structures are designed to be redundant so that they don't collapse from localized damage. This is why I said you need to learn why and how the central core was designed, or any building of that type, and the physics involved that keeps them from collapsing on themselves through the path of most resistance.

OK sources, here's a start...

csep10.phys.utk.edu...
www.myphysicslab.com...

If you understand how buildings are designed you will be able to put it in context, if you don't know then what sources are going to help you understand?


if the WTC towers didn't have any resistance to their collapse then why did they fall slower than the free falling debri?


Did they? By how much? Resistance in a mechanical structure is not going to mean a few seconds slower than falling debris, it means a stopping and deflecting of the collapse wave, the resistance problem is more than just the collapse speed, any resistance and you would not have had a complete global symmetrical collapse, which we did with ALL three buildings. That only happens when the collapses are controlled, for obvious reasons as I keep trying to explain.


The only way that I know to fall slower than free fall speed is to have some sort of resistance to the force of gravity.


And that would be from UNDAMAGED structure. Gravity is not stronger than bolts and welds otherwise nothing would ever stand up. Only a few floors were damage and on fire, the majority of the building was not touched by either and thus maintained it's original strength and would thus offer mass resistance, as they were designed to do, to the collapse.


Then we are taken back to the statement that the collapse could not have been symmetrical AND had resistance.


Yes resistance would cause asymmetry in the collapses, why is that so hard to understand (is it because you all believe NIST when they claimed global collapse was inevitable once initiated?). Any amount of resistance would cause the debris to be deflected to the path of least resistance, but instead we see a symmetrical ejection of debris in all directions equally as the building collapses through the path of most resistance.

(If you need sources for any of that then you haven't done your research and shouldn't be arguing the point in the first place, I'm not here to hold hands and do your research for you).



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


Did they? By how much?


If the towers had no resistance lower floors then they would have fallen in 9.2 seconds and they fell slower than 9.2 seconds. How much slower is up for debate. These are all the points that I made previously in this tread.

911research.wtc7.net...
says 15 seconds and 17 seconds

www.journalof911studies.com...

says 16.6 seconds

911review.com...

says over 13 seconds


Now I saw with my own eyes the collapse. I believe the CNN footage was not fake.

So it collapsed around 7 seconds slower than than free fall speed





The only way that I know to fall slower than free fall speed is to have some sort of resistance to the force of gravity.


And that would be from UNDAMAGED structure. Gravity is not stronger than bolts and welds otherwise nothing would ever stand up. Only a few floors were damage and on fire, the majority of the building was not touched by either and thus maintained it's original strength and would thus offer mass resistance, as they were designed to do, to the collapse.




Phew finally we agree that the undamaged structure slowed the speed of the collapse with resistance.




Then we are taken back to the statement that the collapse could not have been symmetrical AND had resistance.


Yes resistance would cause asymmetry in the collapses, why is that so hard to understand.




After saying:

"The only way that I know to fall slower than free fall speed is to have some sort of resistance to the force of gravity 'and that would be from UNDAMAGED structure' "

You proceed to say that any amount of resistance would cause an asymmetrical collapse and that the collapse was symmetrical.

The buildings can't fall 7 seconds slower than free fall speed and not have resistance.

1. We both agree that the collapse had resistance from "UNDAMAGED structure"

2. We both agree that the towers had a symmetrical collapse

We agree the collapses were symmetrical. We agree the undamaged floors offered resistance to the collapse.


Where is the logic that explains that any amount of resistance would cause asymmetry in the collapse when we both agree the collapse had resistance AND was symmetrical?




Oh I checked out your sources. I understand newton's laws of motion. I saw the colored sticks all falling at the same speed. I noticed that the only way that a stick would fall slower is if there was resistance to the fall. Since there were no rubber bands holding up the WTC towers then that just confirms what we had already agreed upon: That the WTC collapses were slowed by resistance from undamaged floors.

I also checked out newtons laws of motion. Those were already used when determining that the lower floors offered resistance to the collapse.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

1. We both agree that the collapse had resistance from "UNDAMAGED structure"

2. We both agree that the towers had a symmetrical collapse

We agree the collapses were symmetrical. We agree the undamaged floors offered resistance to the collapse.


Where is the logic that explains that any amount of resistance would cause asymmetry in the collapse when we both agree the collapse had resistance AND was symmetrical?



His claims are contradictory to all rational and educated person that reads them. He cannot supply any technical article, not even in the J.O.N.E.S. Journal, that explains this.

Let me help you here with a translation. When he says this:

"I'm not here to hold hands and do your research for you"

What it really means is that he has zero support for his statements, other than what he's read on a conspiracy website like Gage's or DRG's. And when you examine THOSE statements, they have zero support either. Not even the aforementioned and missing technical article.

Not even something that is WRONG, and shows that the author is horriblt biased and out of his/her element. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

All truthers have when they claim this are appeals to incredulity and vague but non-explanatory links to basic physics like the ones given to you.

It would go a loooong way to getting their new investigation to put something together if they're right, for physics does not rely on opinions, but math, which are irrefutable. But no one has attempted it.

Very telling.......



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
If the towers had no resistance lower floors then they would have fallen in 9.2 seconds and they fell slower than 9.2 seconds. How much slower is up for debate. These are all the points that I made previously in this tread.


WRONG!

The resistance offered by thousands of tons of welded and bolted steel in a redundant structure is not measured in seconds. As each floor 'pancaked' the resistance would have built up and the collapse wave would have slowed down, but it didn't it accelerated through the collapse. The whole collapse, if it even would in the first place from fire, should have happened over a long period of time not seconds.

Steel when subjected to fire does not hold it's strength until it suddenly fails. It fails over time, sagging and bending and losing it's shape.

There was no resistance from undamaged structure, which was the majority of the building.

Also as I explained and you obviously ignored, in U2U even, resistance would cause an asymmetrical collapse as it would cause debris to move towards the path of least resistance but it doesn't do that the whole building continues through the path of most resistance with no sign of slowing, or deflection of the building.

But the whole 'pancake' hypothesis is mute anyway, you are arguing for something even NIST rejected. Pancake collapses do not look like what happened to the 3 WTC buildings, where are the stack of pancaked floors? There were no floors to pancake, they all started turning to dust as it collapses, there are no complete floors in the debris pile, where are the massive steel floors pans? Where did all the concrete go? It turned to dust to the point it completely covers the top of the building, where is all that dust coming from so soon into the collapse? It's the floors doh!

But before even all that you have to prove that steel can get hot enough to fail in an hour from carbon based room fire. BTW it can't.


It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer...

...of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com...

I keep asking you guys to learn about heat transfer because you seem to assume that fire temps equal steel temps...You all need to really do some research before you make claims that you obviously don't understand.

[edit on 6/6/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Support for my statements is KNOWN PHYSICS. Support for the OS is assumptions and lot's of big IF's.

It's not my fault you fail to understand.

If you need resources for what you should have learned in school I can't help you. I post links to physics sites but I get the same replies from you, so it's obvious you either don't bother reading the links, or you already think you know it all and don't need to, or you just don't understand. So why should I bother?

If you are here arguing for the OS shouldn't you know about the physics involved first? If you did understand the physics I'm explaining you would explain where I'm wrong, but no you post crap like this. So either you don't understand, or you are trying to avoid disusing it, which is nothing new when it comes to physics of the collapses.

[edit on 6/6/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



The impacts of the planes would have caused massive damage to several floor structures . The intense heat would cause further weakening and failure of the thin material in the floor trusses.

Once the first few floor supports failed , the 'pancake' theory was inevitable ., the combined weight of the higher floors collectively contributing to the failure of each successive floor .

Tubular steel radiates heat much further than solid steel . Will supply links if requested .

The 'squibs' of smoke you see coming out of lower floors is due to the fact that the floors INSIDE the building are failing in succession , compression from blowing out the windows . You are unable to see the floors failing because the facade is not failing at exactly the same rate .

The floor trusses were what was keeping the exterior 'beams' in place . The towers failed from the inside out .

No explosives were needed .

Study the construction history .




I just want to hear your explanation of all the interrior beams and where they went as the floors fell onto each other.

collapse Video simulation



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LieBuster
 


" i like it when they get to the bit about the fire protection being blown from the suports because they realy get shot to pieces on that one. "

If you care to go back and read the entire OP , then you would see that it discusses the fact that the fire protection was FALLING OFF even during the CONSTRUCTION of the towers .

So , who is it that is really getting 'shot to pieces' in this discussion ?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


" As each floor 'pancaked' the resistance would have built up and the collapse wave would have slowed down, but it didn't it accelerated through the collapse. "


The first part of this statement not only makes no sense whatsoever , it is downright ludicrous .

For the sake of argument , let's assume each floor structure weighed 600 tons .

Now , if floor A breaks loose and drops 12 feet onto floor B , then floor B is certainly going to fail simply because the bolts/supports were designed to support a STANDING load , not the principal load PLUS the increased load imposed by the force and momentum of a subsequent 600 tons .

Once floor B fails , then you have 1200 tons , falling 12 feet , causing the supports of floor C to fail .

All the way to the bottom ., ACCELERATING with the increased weight of each subsequent floor collapse .

It's really a no-brainer , if you stop and think about it .



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NO-USE
 


There are PLENTY of threads , right here on ATS , that shows pictures of the debris field from the collapses .

Try the search function .



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
...It's really a no-brainer , if you stop and think about it .


Oh jeez armchair physics. Just go take a look at how a real pancake collapse happens.

You seem to forget as the floors build up there is no where for the other collapsing floors to go thus the collapse slows it doesn't continue to crush floors once they've pancaked, where are the stack of pancaked floors? The only way for the collapse to not slow is all the resistance is removed, and that include any floors 'pancaked' bellow the next set of floors. As the floors fall all the building under it will not just disappear, it takes energy to cause the floors to break from their fastenings and that takes time it can not be instant (as I explained in my first u2u with you pls take all I've said and put it in context, because people have a habit of forgetting what's already been explained and can't put it all in context, if people really new the subject being disused this wouldn't be a problem).

Also the pancaking floors would not take down the central core. How can they both become detached and pull it down with them? The central core was the strongest part of the building and could stand on it's own, just look at how it's designed.

Also you forget that NIST does not support the pancake collapse hypothesis, so you are offering a third alternative supported by no one but the uninformed.

You seem to forget that seeing as the central core collapsed along with the floors they were obviously working as one unit, not floors pancaking, they can't collapse because they failed at the floor joists and bring down the central core at the same time.

But again all that is really irrelevant until you can show how carbon fires caused the steel to fail in an hour in the first place, without that you have no collapse, pancake or otherwise. And no it wasn't the jet fuel, jet fuel burns cooler than your average room fire so all it would do is accelerate the fire not make it hotter. And no it wasn't the plane impact, the plane impact was localized damage, localized damage can't cause symmetrical collapse.

Here's a nice gif that shows the top of WTC 1 already breaking up before the lower part of the building starts to collapse. The same thing happened to WTC 2 except the timing was off and the top was allowed to start taking the path of least resistance before the bottom section dropped (the tilt can also not be explained by 'pancake collapse').




posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by NO-USE
 


There are PLENTY of threads , right here on ATS , that shows pictures of the debris field from the collapses .

Try the search function .



I have failed to see any with a single interior beam still standing, which in the theory you were told to believe, there would be some still there right?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
You mean to tell me there are people who still believe the WTC fell down due to jet fuel and office fires. Talk about promoting ignorance.

I would love to see credible science to support this fairytale. Some of you OS believers can forget using NIST, they have been DEBUNKED years ago.
BTW, you cannot have a pancake collapse when you have steel beams hurling upwards and outwards over 500 feet in the air, and blowing these steel beams into other tall buildings and ripping huge gashes into them.

That is not a pancake that is an explosion.


[edit on 6-6-2010 by impressme]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join