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.

 

WTC Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

page: 22
104
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


ok i have cited everything...i have put out loads of material and you sum up with I AM RUDE....i said i would not reply until you provide things on your have...you have done nothing...cept say this and that cannot happen...but i have tried to always provide back up with what i have stated...links...photos...documents....as anyone will see.

one thing i have not done....is use YOUTUBE....so i have not been rude...i am just CHOOSING not to stoop to your level of wanting everything for nothing...so PLEASE go do some homework.




posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I will try ....the top section should not have even collapsed at all in the fashion it did....the inner core would have still been intact...and in this answer i will also point out a couple of things to Nef.

the progressive collapse in order to happen require mass...the mass is what creates the plasticity and buckling as the mass accelerates due to total failure of the floor or floors below.

now an indication of collapse is due to the expulsion of the smoke in a horizontal fashion outwards.

now realising this series of photos indicates less than a second in time you see right at the top floor and aproximately 10 floors below that this expulsion of smoke occurs.

therefore one can see that the very floor and 10 floors below collapse. NOW the inner core gos to the top of the structue...there is not enough mass to cause failure in the core structure.


In this analysis you ignore the fact that the core section does not need to collapse completely during the start of collapse. As I already pointed out, a large part of the core section still stood up a few moments after the rest of the building had collapsed.

So what actually happened is that the floors collapsing and the top section falling down severely damaged the central cores, especially the horizontal beams holding the core columns together. They did not collapse immediately and also did not need to, but did shortly after because of the damage.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


I am not going to waste my time on every conspiracy link you post. I read the page with photos you linked, and it was one of the most biased pieces of crap I have ever read. Like I said, it started with the conclusion explosives are used. Reversed science.

Now, try to explain in your own words, in short but complete, why the mass of the top section was not enough to innate a progressive collapse. You already did all the research and you are a structural engineer, so this should be easy.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by plube
 





our conversation ends now as i will not answer to someone who cannot bother to read look or listen.



After nine years of hearing their b.s., plube, It's a waste of time even trying to argue these points with them. If they're still grasping at straws this late in the game, they probably work for the government, so their agenda is very specific . . . and it has nothing to do with finding out the truth.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


Care to explain why the mass of the top section was not enough to initiate a progressive collapse? I am all ears but the issue is not me, but the lack of explanation.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


In other words, because someone has done research and found no foul play in the mechanics of the collapses, he must work for the government? Wow, isn't that something.

I think that the O/S of the collapse is the truth. What I don't think is that the O/S of the terrorists is true (possibly). I believe it's much more likely that our government kind of "let" them get away with it, just like with pearl harbor, and just like with pearl harbor, things accidentally went a little more wrong than expected. This, however, just allowed more propaganda power and incentive to get into a war to try to keep the economy going (though it didn't work all that great at first).



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


Care to explain why the mass of the top section was not enough to initiate a progressive collapse? I am all ears but the issue is not me, but the lack of explanation.


In a top down collapse the mass at the top stays in one piece smashing down on the structure. As this shows


The tops of the wtc towers were crushed within a couple of seconds of collapse. watch the antena keel over. Its the complete opposite of a top down progressive collapse.



And this is why you cannot progressively top down a steel framed building without explosives IMHO.


edit on 11-9-2010 by remymartin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


In the first video you post you also see the top section keel over. The top section of the WTC was not crushed, just obscured by smoke and dust. That is clearly visible in the video I posted earlier. You can see the whole top section coming down crushing the floors below it in the first instances of the collapse. Also, like pointed out earlier, the top section collapsing does not make its mass disappear. And once the collapse is on its way for a number of floors, the mass of the top section is no longer relevant, the collapsed floors themselves will have enough mass to let the collapse progress.

So the "disintegrated top section" argument makes no sense on 2 accounts:

1) It contradicts video evidence showing the top section falling down nearly intact.
2) The top section collapsing does not decrease its mass.

And a bonus:

3) Why would you blow up the top section if you were using explosives? For what purpose?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by remymartin
 


In the first video you post you also see the top section keel over. The top section of the WTC was not crushed, just obscured by smoke and dust. That is clearly visible in the video I posted earlier. You can see the whole top section coming down crushing the floors below it in the first instances of the collapse. Also, like pointed out earlier, the top section collapsing does not make its mass disappear. And once the collapse is on its way for a number of floors, the mass of the top section is no longer relevant, the collapsed floors themselves will have enough mass to let the collapse progress.

So the "disintegrated top section" argument makes no sense on 2 accounts:

1) It contradicts video evidence showing the top section falling down nearly intact.
2) The top section collapsing does not decrease its mass.

And a bonus:

3) Why would you blow up the top section if you were using explosives? For what purpose?



Looks crushed to me



You would need to blow up the top section to stop this happening


Unfortunately your video is cropped it only shows the top part of the collapse



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Lots of mass here and it still fails and its not a steel framed building. You need exlposives to bring down wtc towers.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by remymartin

Looks crushed to me


Looks obscured by dust to me. But you ignore point 2, the mass does not disappear, even if it had (partially) collapsed.



You would need to blow up the top section to stop this happening


You make no sense. Let me try to rephrase point 3, why would they need to blow up the top section in order to blow up the lower section?


edit on 11-9-2010 by -PLB- because: correct point



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


And your earlier video showed that other buildings do crash all the way down. So the conclusions is: not all buildings behave the same during collapse.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Point 3. total destruction, no room for error

And as for the mass it was not enough on its own to bring down a steel framed building.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I wish the towers would have only partially collapsed, so there could have been a proper inspection instead of shipping all the debris away quick sharp.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by remymartin
Point 3. total destruction, no room for error


The state of the top section has absolutely no influence on the destruction of the lower floors if explosives were used.



And as for the mass it was not enough on its own to bring down a steel framed building.


Correct, It was mass in combination with velocity, aka momentum. In addition, the top section hit the lower floors, which were only designed to carry the weight of one floor, not the whole top section. This was mainly the task of the core columns, which had obviously failed on the floor the collapse started.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by remymartin
Point 3. total destruction, no room for error


The state of the top section has absolutely no influence on the destruction of the lower floors if explosives were used.



And as for the mass it was not enough on its own to bring down a steel framed building.


Correct, It was mass in combination with velocity, aka momentum. In addition, the top section hit the lower floors, which were only designed to carry the weight of one floor, not the whole top section. This was mainly the task of the core columns, which had obviously failed on the floor the collapse started.


As i said total destruction was the aim

Which had ONLY failed on the floor the collapse started


edit on 11-9-2010 by remymartin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


It seem to me you are imagining that total destruction was the aim.Where did you get this idea? Why would it have been a problem if a couple of floors were not destroyed? (which is by the way very unlikely after falling down 400 meter).

As for the central columns failing, yes, that was only on the floor where collapse started. So all support of the top section was gone. Without support, there was nothing left to stop it. It would have been a miracle if the central columns of the top section somehow fell exactly into the footprint of the lower columns, and weld together that the same split second.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Think about it if it was not totally destroyed it would have been really difficult to have cleaned the site up in the record time it actually was. there should have been investigators crawling all over it.

And it was also a miracle the core collapsed the way you say it did . But hey 3 towers all on the same day and no explosives im finding it hard to swallow.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


To be frank, you don't sound intelligent at all. You say, think about it, they cleaned it up really fast. Of course they did! If your entire country watched a huge tragedy like that, wouldn't the first thing you'd want to do be to get the debris shipped to an area where it can be examined extremely closely?

As for the three towers in one day, I'm surprised you find that hard to swallow, yet you're willing to swallow absolutely no evidence of explosives, only a hunch. A hunch that has been debunked by countless testimonies and evidences.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by remymartin
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Think about it if it was not totally destroyed it would have been really difficult to have cleaned the site up in the record time it actually was. there should have been investigators crawling all over it.


I would not be so hard to demolish a couple floors. But like I say, after falling down 400 meter they could never have remained intact. Physically impossible. Blowing up the top section only would jeopardize an operation like this, as videos of it would only raise questions.


And it was also a miracle the core collapsed the way you say it did .


Why was that a miracle? What part exactly is miraculous? The part that the plane weakened the columns on impact which resulted in an uneven and increased load? The part that the fire weakened the steal? The part that the combination of the two caused enough columns to fail that it no longer could support the up section?



new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join