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.

 

1200 Architects And Engineers

page: 10
99
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by oniongrass
 


ROFL - would you really want Li-lo on your monitor?

I'm not trying to give NIST credence, but at the same time I'm not dismissing them either.

At the same time, I'm not giving 9/11 truthers who claim the collapse it not possible credence, and I'm not dismissing them either.

What I am saying is this - No one knows. No one knows and no one ever will know, because - frankly - no one has all the data available.




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


Actually they did not become ultra fine dust. That was probably drywall and what not. Most of the iron was recovered. In fact some of it was used on a US navy boat.

A lot of materials int he towers were able to easily become dust, like dry wall. Which it had a lot of.

Thermite could be formed and with the weakened iron already, you have collapse.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by rand27
 


A lot of witnesses heard explosions that day. Especially at WTC 7.

Like this explosion here:



Here are the real terrorists, that you should be worried about:






[edit on 26-8-2010 by Skyline74]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyline74
 


Tell me something - have you ever heard a stressed structural element fail and snap?

I'm not saying what you hear there is that happening by the way, I'm just curious as to what you think one sounds like?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Tell me something, do you think that is what one sounds like ??

Are you for real ? Your questions are completely stylized as a debunker, you say there is no way of knowing, well, yes there is.

Gravity does not eject thousands of tonnes of debris outwards, upwards, create vortexes, and literally there is no debris impacting the next levels of the towers as anyone with eyes can see.

If you don't know what happened do not try and make it appear that what happened "could" happen.

What part of massive explosiveness and incredible pulverization would it take to make you think its NOT gravity induced, well there are thousands of pics of these towers turning into a mushroom cloud, i don't know why you seem to ignore them.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyline74
 


That was explained. The tanks under the building.

Also, like the WTC, thermite could be made naturally from the materials available.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


Are you actually reading my posts? It doesn't seem that you are.

I'm not debunking anything.

What I am saying is that both sides have a theory, and that neither actually know.

Step back away from your pre concieved notions and think about that for a while.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Yea tell yourself what you need to. Steel framed buidings have never and will never fall into their own footprint from an official explanation of fire (Except for those three that day of course). I may be a conspiracy theorist but you my friend are a coincidence theorist.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by neformore
 

Tell me something, do you think that is what one sounds like ??


I know its what one sounds like. I was 200 feet away from a pre-stressed concrete bridge beam failure. It sounded like a bomb going off, and - if it had been in a city streetscape, echoing off the buildings, it would have sounded a damn site worse.

And as I said, I'm not saying that is what happened - I was asking the poster if they had heard such a thing.

 


Just because I am not 100% fully agreeing with your chosen position, you are assuming I'm completely in opposition to you. READ what I'm writing, instead of just deciding to condem it out of habit.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titan Uranus
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Yea tell yourself what you need to. Steel framed buidings have never and will never fall into their own footprint from an official explanation of fire (Except for those three that day of course). I may be a conspiracy theorist but you my friend are a coincidence theorist.


Not just fire.

Huge kinetic impact, then massive structural load transferance AND fire.

BIG difference.

I've never understood why so many people just refer to fire.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91 ...
A bunch of farmers did attack America. But the question you should ask is how was it possible for farmers to attack us. The question should be asked who cleared a path for them to do it. ...

Wow.

I wonder who taught those farmers to fly aerobatics with a 767, turning it in a way even experienced pilots say is near impossible, getting it just right on the first try. A little private aviation school in Florida, where they didn't learn how to land only take off?

(By the way, I was wrong about 767's. Apparently they are not even much bigger than 707's. 911research.wtc7.net... )

Guys, I think the mods have decided to cool off this discussion. Fine, we know what we know and we think what we think. Thanks for the space while it was open.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Titan Uranus
 


Never believe the whole story. Look at it yourself. It is possible that everyone is wrong. That the government was too lazy to investigate and that mass hysteria lead to incorrect beliefs.

I chose from a young age to be skeptical, stoic, and logical.

So let me do just that.

Could fires alone destroy the towers? Fires never brought down a sky scrapper to my knowledge. Could they survive a plane impact? Probably. But they would suffer damage. We know that the fires would make the steel weaker. But could it collapse? Well we know the total mass of one tower was 450,000,000 kg. Lets conservatively estimate that the part that fell was 100,000,000 kg. Momentum would be 981,000,000 kg*(m/s) after one second of falling. That is massive.

reply to post by oniongrass
 


As was mentioned on the topic related to it, some pilots could not replicate it. but some could. The fact that some could and some could not does not effect the ability of some people. I have played flight simulators and replicated it and I've never been taught in flight school.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by oniongrass
Guys, I think the mods have decided to cool off this discussion. Fine, we know what we know and we think what we think. Thanks for the space while it was open.


I beg your pardon?

Where did you drag such an absurd notion like that from?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


What load "transferrance", if you mean the load was actually lightened due to much of it being ejected outside of the building, i will agree with you there.

Kinetic energy from what ? Not sure where all this kinetic energy suddenly came from, did a giant hammer hit the top of the towers ?

Watch the towers start falling, explosion , disintegration, the tops hang for a second, totally annihilate themselves and this disorganized mass is supposed to attack the columns ?

You have clearly stated you believe the official story, yet you posted that you do not know, I am not sure what you are talking about.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


Did you forget the 10+ floors above the impact zone that were intact? What happens when 10 intact floors move downward as one unit, when the damaged/destroyed sections give way to the damage and fires? What is going to stop the top floors from moving down?

The floors below were not designed to stop a vertical movement of 10 floors moving as one. THIS is where the kinetic energy is coming in.

If you are aware of the design of the WTC towers, you would see how the design itself helped to "create" the way the towers fell. The "tube-in-tube" basically had the top floors telescope into the lower floors. That is why the top managed to go "into" the rest of the building, and the columns were not prepared for such a large dynamic load, when they were designed for static loads. Also the top did not disintegrate. It was still intact when it fell BEHIND The massive dust cloud it kicked out when the drywall and concrete got crushed.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
What load "transferrance", if you mean the load was actually lightened due to much of it being ejected outside of the building, i will agree with you there.


The weight of a building is transferred downwards to its foundations by load distribution across the structure. Remove part of the structure suddenly and violently, and suddenly the loads they are supporting are transferred into the remaining structure. When the planes hit, they smashed huge holes into the structure - where do you think the weight of the upper floors was distributed to - they were not held up by air.



Kinetic energy from what ? Not sure where all this kinetic energy suddenly came from, did a giant hammer hit the top of the towers ?


Yes - in effect - it did, in the form of a 110-120 tonne aircraft smashing into the side of the tower at upwards of 400mph.



Watch the towers start falling, explosion , disintegration, the tops hang for a second, totally annihilate themselves and this disorganized mass is supposed to attack the columns ?


Q - What is heavier - a tonne of feathers or a tonne of lead?
A - They both weigh a tonne.

Just because the larger elements broke down into smaller ones does not mean the weight went away. Yes, some of the dust billowed outwards, but the majority of the weight of the collapsing structure is still there.



You have clearly stated you believe the official story, yet you posted that you do not know, I am not sure what you are talking about.


I have most certainly NOT stated that at all. You are clearly NOT reading my posts. Maybe you should, because reading comprehension is a vital part of finding the "truth" behind anything.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Sudden, Violent event.... I thought the beams sagged and bent... i agree though, it sure did look sudden and violent, a rush of new fire burst forth and debris ejects outwards before the next floor decides to "collapse".

If they were not held up by air , it must have been the holes themselves that held it up....please the columns clearly held fast.


I was not aware that you could store kinetic energy at all, much less for extended periods of time, i will try and make use of that knowledge in the future...

All that weight does not come to bear on the core columns, that are standing STRAIGHT up, the floor pans should have perhaps bent to the sides, and perhaps caused the beams to start toppling to a side , not pulverize themselves and fall as fast as everything else.

Given the chance, i would rather be hit by a tonne of feathers for sure, since the weight is far more distributed, less dense for sure, and i could likely survive it, a tonne of steel will hit a lot harder in specific areas.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Falling as one, the building below resists "as one".

If what you say is true, then why did the floors below that are ALL feeling the impact of this new kinetic weight, not buckle and instead look rock solid till the cloud covers it up.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

ROFL - would you really want Li-lo on your monitor?

I'm not trying to give NIST credence, but at the same time I'm not dismissing them either.

At the same time, I'm not giving 9/11 truthers who claim the collapse it not possible credence, and I'm not dismissing them either.

What I am saying is this - No one knows. No one knows and no one ever will know, because - frankly - no one has all the data available.


And you have been a civil engineering professor for 24 years? Maybe it is good you never practiced CE -- who knows how many buildings/bridges would have collapsed?

Both of the theories can't be true. They are so far apart. You can't be a good engineer and be so undecided!

I've worked on a daily basis with ET's for 25 years -- and I know that 911 was an Act of God.

Neither the OS nor the Truther explanation is the solution.

You can't have three perfect implosions like 1, 2 and 7. You can't have all that steel, concrete, etc. be pulverized to dust. Where did the energy come from? Why wasn't there horrendous amounts of noise if enough explosives were used to collapse and pulverize?

And there were many other unexplained things that simply couldn't have happened, but they did happen.

You "men of god" and “non-believers” say "God doesn't do such things" or “there is no GOD”..

Want to see evidence of God doing the impossible, the mighty beyond belief, the brutal?

Look at the Sun Spot thread on ATS. At the time of the Haiti earthquake, a sun spot appeared in the shape of the Haitian island group Then several wks later, at the time of another earthquake in a Pacific island group, another sun spot appeared in the shape of that island group. Then a short time later, at the time of the start of the Olympics, 5 sun spots appeared in the shape of the Olympic logo.

See: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You think there is consternation/argument about the OS vs Truther explanation, wait til lots of smart people realize that the 911 “accident” happened as an “Act of GOD”.




[edit on 26-8-2010 by etcorngods]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by oniongrass
Guys, I think the mods have decided to cool off this discussion. Fine, we know what we know and we think what we think. Thanks for the space while it was open.


I beg your pardon?

Where did you drag such an absurd notion like that from?

From your conflating speculative but possible theories with the utterly impossible story from NIST.

From Gorman91's turn into a strange dimension where towelheads from the caves of Afghanistan became master pilots of 767s without anyone noticing.

You're both mods. Yes it's a "mod conspiracy" theory. I'm prone to conspiracy theories, this is mine. But that's my answer to your question.



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join