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.

 

My beliefs have changed regarding 911

page: 19
15
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

Well I know what MIT said about the airplane damage. It supports the OS theories for the north tower and a totally different theory for the south tower:

"Yet, we do believe that the primary damage suffered by the South Tower via the initial impact alone was severe enough to bring it down with very little outside help. This is the point of view that has been given almost no attention or thought. At the same time, several arguments are introduced later in this article that support the theory that the North Tower collapse was facilitated by fire."



This is pretty much what NIST says.

wtc.nist.gov...

Finding 50:

"Thermal effects dominated the weakening of WTC 1."

"Aircraft impact damage dominated the weakening of WTC 2."




posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 

So the Clinton comment was sarcasm. He embraced Obama and was not mentioned by Obama after that. Fire did the impossible at all points, even building 7, so all three fell smoothly as beams all gave away at same time? Fire and damage was so bad, plane exploded but fuel was pooled burning at impact points, then the impact point waited for fire to spread to all beams, then all points gave away? A building would then fall smoothly into It's own foot print?

Above is what the OS supporters want to believe over a controlled demolition. Amazing. Ignorant but some think winning lottery is a good bet. Zero % chance OS is what happened.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdmiralX

Fire did the impossible at all points, even building 7, so all three fell smoothly as beams all gave away at same time?


Yep. That's exactly the manner in which buckling failure of steel columns works.

Your incredulity means nothing unless it's backed by sound engineering, of which you have none.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by AdmiralX

Fire did the impossible at all points, even building 7, so all three fell smoothly as beams all gave away at same time?


Yep. That's exactly the manner in which buckling failure of steel columns works.

Your incredulity means nothing unless it's backed by sound engineering, of which you have none.

What you said does nothing for explaining why you believe the impossible. I stated what you believe and you offer nothing. May life be kind to you and allow you to wake up.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdmiralX
reply to post by iamcpc
 

So the Clinton comment was sarcasm. He embraced Obama and was not mentioned by Obama after that. Fire did the impossible at all points, even building 7, so all three fell smoothly as beams all gave away at same time? Fire and damage was so bad, plane exploded but fuel was pooled burning at impact points, then the impact point waited for fire to spread to all beams, then all points gave away? A building would then fall smoothly into It's own foot print?

Above is what the OS supporters want to believe over a controlled demolition. Amazing. Ignorant but some think winning lottery is a good bet. Zero % chance OS is what happened.


I can agree with a lot of things that you have said but I disagree that there is a 0% chance the WTC towers collapsed from airplanes and fire. If that was the case then there would not be one credible person or source who would support that theory. Since I have found several I must conclude that it is POSSIBLE that the WTC towers collapsed from airplanes and fire.

Sources from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities Northwestern and Perdue.

sources cited here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also every independant investigation that i found about how much damage was caused by the airplane impacts has confirmed that it was possible that the WTC towers collapsed from airplanes and fire. The sources that support the demolition theories have not yet addressed the damage caused by the airplane impacts which is something that I want to have done to make sure that i'm being told both sides of the story about the airplane impacts.

What if all the truther experts agree that the airplane impact to the south tower caused enough damage to bring down the building without fire or explosives or thermite or energy weapons????

Then again what if the truther experts examine and investigate the airplane impacts and determine that the airplane impacts barely damaged the building at all???? Either way I want experts who support the demolition theories to do an independant investigation about the damage caused by the airplane impacts!



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 17-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


I have to correct Joey on this...well, add to it, actually:


Yep. That's exactly the manner in which buckling failure of steel columns works.


So often, those who can't wrap their heads around the progress of the collapses of the buildings fail to take into account the methods used to ATTACH the various steel structural members together.

Those are weak points, of course...surely no one will argue that?

Those weaknesses, as stresses were transmitted to the points, at the area of impact and most severe damage contributed to the initiation of the collapse...the combination of loads and force vectors on the attachemnt points, and even on the various steel beams, depending on where (in a very, very complex and chaotic event, such as one should imagine).

Buildings, when erected, have to be designed to resist (mostly) only one force...gravity. Of course, very tall buildings have some sort of "flexing" ability, or capacity, designed in, as well...because they must be able to withstand sideloads from winds. BUT, those tolerances, and designed-in resistance standards to sideloads are NOTHING compared to the massive weight and mass that, once unleashed by a few failures below, will begin to come crashing down, and overwhelming, in a progressive and very hard to predict manner, the structure beneath...a structure that was NOT designed to reisist the momentum of forces that act upon it, from the combination of the MASS, and the acceleration due to gravity.

I should emphasize what many seenm to ignore...momentum. It is the physics that are so poorly understand by a few out there...

It is perfectly logical , and understandable, when viewed with a critical eye, and taking into account all the complexities --- something many simply can't (or refuse to) do.


I guess it's partially due to the laughingly ridiculous image that "boxboy" Richard Gage (one of the founders of "A&E for 9/11 truth") tried to pass off as analagous to the WTC Towers....his cardboard box "models"!!


Not even close to resembling, in design nor structural similarity, the actual buildings. Not scaled down, not nothing at all, no valid comparison; but it DOES make him look a buffoon...and sort of tarnishes his claimed reputation as an "engineer"...




[edit on 17 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The example you copy/pasted here doesn't address your prior statement, which I correctly pointed out as sheer lunacy and ignorance.


Jeez you can't win with you guys, you ask for sources I provide a source, or example, and you call it a 'cut & paste' and totally ignore the example, just more proof you simply don't understand the physics we're talking about.


The third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, if object A exerts a force on object B, then object B also exerts an equal force on object A. Notice that the forces are exerted on different objects..


The forces of two colliding bodies is equal, now if the force are equal on each colliding object then how do YOU explain the how and why of which object receives the most damage? Obviously one does right?

If a small car hits a large truck, for example, I hope you will agree the car will receive the most damage right? So what is it that causes the car to receive the most damage? Could it be because the mass of the truck is greater than the car which causes the car to decelerate faster than the truck (the mass of the truck keeps it from decelerating as fast as the car)?

BTW it works both ways, a bat hitting a ball the ball will accelerate because of the mass of the bat. When solid objects collide and one is fixed then you get deceleration of the objects but the principle is the same. Think about that F-4 and concrete wall vid we've all seen, the plane has less mass than the wall so it is decelerated instantly and smashes to pieces. If the wall had less mass the plane would not have decelerated but gone through the wall and the wall would receive the most damage (the wall would have been accelerated, like a bat hitting a ball).


In accord with Newton's second law of motion, the acceleration of an object is dependent upon both force and mass. Thus, if the colliding objects have unequal mass, they will have unequal accelerations as a result of the contact force which results during the collision...
...(collision of a club with a golf ball) The forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, yet the least massive object receives the greatest acceleration....
...For collisions between equal-mass objects, each object experiences the same acceleration.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

You should have read the rest of my sources to fully understand. The point of the skater example was the backwards acceleration that most people fail to understand happens during collisions.

You have to understand there is no direct link to the physics, you have to understand the concepts and put then in context with the towers.

You are the loony one, you've proved that many times. You fail to understand even basic physics. All you can do is call people names and offer nothing to support your claim or to refute mine. You think calling me names will make me question my own education and stop posting? It's not my fault you fail to understand, or even bother trying to.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I think the problem here is that to determine what caused the collapse of a building that was hit by an airplane and set on fire you need a lot more than highschool physics.

The problem i'm having is that the links you present don't say ANYTHING about the complex physics behind the collapse of the WTC towers or even skyscrapers at all. They talk about skaters and cars.

Then again a lot of what you say and the refrences you make to them dealing with the WTC towers make perfect sense to me. I am not going to copy and paste the points you make and use you as a source because they make sense. For all I know you have a degree in botany or didn't go to college and are using highschool physics sources and saying they relate to the collapse of the WTC towers and they really don't.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 

This thread went dead fast. Guess my 'restatement' of

The OS showed how silly the OS is.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

The forces of two colliding bodies is equal, now if the force are equal on each colliding object then how do YOU explain the how and why of which object receives the most damage? Obviously one does right?



No.

If 2 identical objects collide, then they receive equal damage. To the sane and rational, we realize that determining which object receives the most damage depends on the nature of the 2 objects.

Hence my post about a steel ball vs butter. It was meant to point out to you that your belief that the 3rd determines which object receives the most damage to be false.

You failed at that examination of your beliefs.

The only thing that the 3rd can be usde for is determining energy transfer in a closed system - ie, at what velocities the 2 colliding objects will be moving at after either an elastic, or inelastic collision.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdmiralX

What you said does nothing for explaining why you believe the impossible. I stated what you believe and you offer nothing. May life be kind to you and allow you to wake up.


I have sound engineering principles that backs my understanding of how this happens.

www-math.mit.edu...

"It has been suggested that the inelastic deformation of columns might have ‘cushioned’
the initial descent of the upper part, making it almost static. However, this is impossible
because, for gravity loading, a softening of the load-deflection diagram (Fig. 5) always causes
instability and precludes static deformation (Baˇzant and Cedolin 1991, Chpt. 10 and 13).
The downward acceleration of the upper part is ¨u = N[P0
1 € P1(u)]=m where N = number
of columns and, necessarily, P0
1 = mg=N. This represents a differential equation for u as a
function of time t, and its integration shows that the time that the upper part takes to fall
through the height of one story is, for cold columns, only about 6% longer than the duration
of a free fall from that height, which is 0.87 s. For hot columns, the difference is of course
much less than 6%. So there is hardly any ‘cushioning’."

"The energy dissipa-
tion, particularly that due to the inelastic deformation of columns during the initial drop
of the upper part, may be neglected, i.e., the upper part may be assumed to move through
distance h almost in a free fall (indeed, the energy dissipated in the columns during the fall
is at most equal to 2™‚ the yield moment of columns, ‚ the number of columns, which is
found to be only about 12% of the gravitational potential energy release if the columns were
cold, and much less than that at 800ŽC)."



There's a nearly infinite supply of sources that demonstrate that this is indeed the manner in which steel columns buckle.

Pick up a textbook, or even better, take a few engineering courses. 9/11 was nearly 9 years ago. You, or anyone else could have gotten your master's degree by now in structural engineering in that time, and be able to refute all that is in the NIST report.

I notice that hasn't happened......



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You think calling me names will make me question my own education and stop posting?


God, I hope not.

Responding to your uneducated posts is EXACTLY what debunkers look for when we want to show lurkers just how insane and anti-science truther beliefs are.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ANOK

The forces of two colliding bodies is equal, now if the force are equal on each colliding object then how do YOU explain the how and why of which object receives the most damage? Obviously one does right?


If 2 identical objects collide, then they receive equal damage. To the sane and rational, we realize that determining which object receives the most damage depends on the nature of the 2 objects.

Hence my post about a steel ball vs butter. It was meant to point out to you that your belief that the 3rd determines which object receives the most damage to be false.

You failed at that examination of your beliefs.

The only thing that the 3rd can be usde for is determining energy transfer in a closed system - ie, at what velocities the 2 colliding objects will be moving at after either an elastic, or inelastic collision.


Yes if two objects that are of the same mass collide the damage would be more or less equal. What is your point? You are saying the same thing I am, the nature of the objects (their respective mass) determines the damage, speed increases mass, but the forces on both objects is still the same when they collide, so the speed and increase in the mass will increase the forces on BOTH objects, not just the one that's moving or stationary.

Yes the speed after collision is what determines the damage, which is known as deceleration or backwards acceleration in physics. The greater mass will be effected less then the lower mass object and thus receive less damage.

Elastic collision is when the objects are free to move such as atoms (no loss of kinetic energy during collision, they bounce away from each other and keep moving), inelastic collision is fixed solid objects like buildings, when the forces are changed from kinetic to other forms of energy that creates damage or heat etc, and conserve momentum...

What is this '3rd' you're talking about?

Try again Joey you are still confused. You just want to disagree with 'truthers' don't ya, but you don't even realize you are actually agreeing with what I've been saying all along. Joey quit trying to pretend you understand the physics, you are hurting your OS argument...



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

www.ae911truth.org...
Your source has money to gain from it, and may as well be part of government due to connections there. Many disagree and are professionals who want truth out. Not big contracts with the u.s. govt. I was keeping it simple.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

www.ae911truth.org...
Your source has money to gain from it, and may as well be part of government due to connections there. Many disagree and are professionals who want truth out. Not big contracts with the u.s. govt. I was keeping it simple.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I am in a similar boat as you, Mike.

Years ago, shortly after 9/11, the initial lack of information, the weird half-truths and circumstances surrounding 9/11 led me to seriously consider and believe that a very large conspiracy could have been involved, as it seemed there were massive holes here and there. This was due to an early lack of information and a serious famine of answers. The government, of course, was largely responsible for this early years black hole, since they were being evasive and secretive when they didn't need to be. The Iraq war didn't help matters much, and it certainly fueled speculation and further theories about government involvement in 9/11.

Now we are going on 9 years after the event, and as more information from various sources has finally been released, my belief in a total and massive inside job conspiracy has declined signifgantly. My earlier options and questions stemmed from a complete lack of information being released on the events, and plausible explainations and investigation. I still find some things unsatisfactorily explained, and i still think that some individuals and certain smaller agencies within the government had foreknowledge, maybe even complicity, in the attacks. But overall, after years of keeping tabs and looking into things, I am at least satisfied that the attacks were carried out by 19 fundementalist scumbags on the orders/planning of Al Qaeda.

As far as the collapse of the twin towers goes, it's a grey area still. I am neither in the offical camp of how it collapsed, but neither am I in the controlled demolition camp, either. I really don't know exactly what to think about that, and have decided to reserve judgement until something more definitive comes to light.

When it comes to the "truth movement", however, I just shake my head. In the earlier days, the more extreme and koo-koo theories recieved eyerolls and chuckles. Now they seem to predominate because of the sensationalist appeal of the more out-there ideas, like no-planes, missiles, death rays, nukes, ect. I suppose that's one reason I really lost interest in an active effort for 9/11 truth. because once the more lunatic fringe theories predominated, any chance of a serious, unbiased look or re-investigation of 9/11 went straight to hell.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 

www.ae911truth.org...
Will clarify things for you. Gov is afraid of court or they would be all for it. Lies hide, truth does not need to.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Geemor
oh cheers, thank you letting us know! we al love to hear your opinion.

i don't posess any opinions what may have caused 3 buildings, - two of them designed to endure a plane collision - to collapse within few hours time, one of them wasn't even hit by plane. all we know that 3 buildings collapsed when they should've not. there are lot of reasons to assume that there were something fishy going on, but then there may be the possibilites of flaws in design.


I don't believe the Twin Towers were designed to endure a plane collision. Skyscrapers are designed to hold themselves up in a bit of a stiff wind.

I know about a type of ship that is designed to have airplanes land on them(aircraft carriers), but if you crash airplanes into them, they tend to lose their structural integrity, catch fire, explode and maybe sink.

I would bet those buildings weren't even designed to land a plane on, much less crash one into them.


Bombs blew up and many died, but the Forrestal did not sink.

en.wikipedia.org...

You will also find that the steel affected only by fuel oil and fire did
not change into a liquid state and stay that way for several days.

The eyewitness testimony of the firefighters on 911 shows that
the steel was flowing in liquid form, kerosene AKA jet fuel cannot
do that.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 

They will say nist and mit say it happened so it did. Bush said so and 'presidents never lie and care only about America and it's people' even though all decisions are for globalists. Mit and others won't bite the hand that feeds them. Too smart to tell the truth.




top topics



 
15
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join