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.

 

Professional engineer Jon Cole cuts steel columns with thermate, debunks Nat Geo & unexpectedly repr

page: 22
420
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimistPrime
 

although glass does have tensile strength when set vertically, especially when set in a frame. unfortunately it cant withstand down and side forces simultaneously. i doubt the glass was more than a half inch thick and I'm sure it wasn't Plexiglas.

once the core columns were shattered down the length of the shafts, it only needed to be released at the floor at which the airplanes struck, because of the tremendous weight from above pushing down. we can be absolutely sure that those airplanes didn't have enough weight nor enough explosive energy to cut loose every corner of the floor that it struck, or produce enough shock in the concrete to weaken its strength enough to fail, especially on every column throughout its interior of those affected floors.

the buildings had to be weakened and cut loose by other preplanned means in order for both buildings to come down in the same fashion. we build and test specially designed munitions for a variety of uses including bunker busters and so on, even with the use of atomic bombs on steel re-enforced concrete those buildings don't collapse into a pile of debris and pulverize concrete into dust. so either the contractor who poured the concrete was completely negligent and the inspectors looked the other way during their construction, or the buildings were demolitioned by highly trained demolition engineers?




posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
The towers were 93 to 95% air inside, when they collapse the air must escape through the path of least resistance, the windows.


All you people cannot seem to grasp the fact that the windows were not the path of least resistance. A massive, massive open are where the building as being blown apart -- was the path of least resistance.

It's like you have the air up against a window built to withstand hurricane winds, and then on the other hand you have.... nothing but a gaping suction to the atmosphere outside. And you think the hurricane-proof windows are the path of least resistance.

This is worse than debating the Bible with Christians.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Illustronic
The towers were 93 to 95% air inside, when they collapse the air must escape through the path of least resistance, the windows.


All you people cannot seem to grasp the fact that the windows were not the path of least resistance. A massive, massive open are where the building as being blown apart -- was the path of least resistance.

It's like you have the air up against a window built to withstand hurricane winds, and then on the other hand you have.... nothing but a gaping suction to the atmosphere outside. And you think the hurricane-proof windows are the path of least resistance.

This is worse than debating the Bible with Christians.


HA! seriously bray, these people are *Snip*! Blown out windows by descending ceiling tiles... yea thats it, great detective work OS trusters. Don't forget that air is compressible and you'd need a hell of a lot of compression and air tight characteristics to go for the windows blown out theory by ceiling tiles. A perfectly intact slab coming down like a piston to squeeze the air? Well now, wouldn't that entail some precise handily placed thermate to achieve that effect? The interpretation of how the buildings came down in the trusters eyes are as endless as their interpretation of the bible.
edit on 23-12-2010 by clameater because: (no reason given)


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
edit on 12/24/2010 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by aliengenes
 


We have all these people claiming the sheer weight of the plane was what caused the collapse correct? Wasnt the plane vaporized from the heat of the burning jet fuel? Or at least liquefied? If it was in a liquid form then wouldnt the weight then be unequally distributed due to finding the path of least resistance? Airtight containers are also water tight. Hot metal would have caused some holes somewhere for the air to escape , right? Path of least resistance? All these holes occurring in the building would have the pressure build up of a slice of swiss cheese. So now we have a crashed airplane that not only had the amazing ability to keep the metal inside of the rubble hot for months after the event, it was hot enough to melt through multiple floors of concrete and warp the entire core support to cause a building to fall at near free fall speeds and shoot out of the building through the air and into building 7 and cause the fire that weakened its structural integrity enough to make it collapse at near free fall speeds as well. Magic Bullet ring a bell?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



All you people cannot seem to grasp the fact that the windows were not the path of least resistance. A massive, massive open are where the building as being blown apart -- was the path of least resistance.


Stop and think about what you are saying . The "massive , massive open area" , was AT or ABOVE the point of collapse initiation .

Therefore ................. , there is MASS , whether it be in the form of a single floor , several floors , or the remains of such floor(s) , that is BETWEEN the massive open area , and the ejections that you see .

So , are you saying that the path of least resistance would be up and through thousands of tons of material , or would it be through some window panes ?

In my opinion , this part of your argument holds no merit .



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by clameater
A perfectly intact slab coming down like a piston to squeeze the air?

A perfectly intact piece of slab coming down and causing windows on floors several stories down from the collapsing floor at that! lol



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Correct me if Im wrong, but wasnt the core of the building pretty much hollow except for the core columns themselves? Wouldnt the big empty space at the center of the building be the path of least resistance? A seemingly hollow tube running the length of the building would lead straight to the top of the building as the building collapsed, right? So there is even more holes occurring in the building than there is in the OS! hahaha



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Loved the video this guy made, loved the brainiac version even more

I used something similar, years ago, called a thermic lance-it went through anything, even the concrete floor of the workshop!, just looked like a giant sparkler, it had a magnesium tip (which was a bitch to get going) but when it went, it went

Easy enough to tape a few of these to a beam & see what happens........



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd

All you people cannot seem to grasp the fact that the windows were not the path of least resistance. A massive, massive open are where the building as being blown apart -- was the path of least resistance.


Stop and think about what you are saying . The "massive , massive open area" , was AT or ABOVE the point of collapse initiation .


What are you talking about? Seriously? The whole area where the building was "collapsing" was the giant, gaping hole to the outside atmosphere!!

Do you seriously think where the building was being destroyed, there was nowhere for the air to escape to the outside? Are we looking at the same buildings coming down? Do you NOT SEE all the crap flying OUT OF THE BUILDINGS?

This is insane.




Just goes to show, you can lead the horse to water.... Or, there are none so blind as those will refuse to see...
edit on 23-12-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I dunno.. I still believe it was a giant c***-up on the side of the original contractor.
I imagine the following scenario: 70's buildings were mostly made to last about 30 years (that's why the company I currently work for, got a new building. The old one was exactly 30 years old and started to fall apart)
What would be more convenient than already build-in the explosive bolts and some kind of explosive cords (explaining the nice cuts in the beams) when building. You can thusly "prime" all important spots, so if the building has had it's use, it can be demolished in no-time short.

However. Arab nutters fly planes in the buildings(buildings, constructed to survive the fly-in of a 737....), setting off the charges prematurely. The original contractor -and The Government, knowing of these money-saving practices ,but fearing the backlash- is deadly afraid of the litigations that may follow, the endless, expensive court-cases etc. of this, inherently dangerous, but financially soooo advantageous way of doing things. (remember, every crime by corps. or Governments is about money&power)
They all stick their heads together, fabricate a story, the Government happy, they finally got the tools to hit the louse in their pelt: Saddam..everybody happy.. Aaand, while they were at it they also used the occasion to get rid of the other building.

Well, just another wild theory among many.. I most certainly do not claim any "evidence" or "truth' 'S just a mental exercize.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


If the floors were collapsing sequentially, the compressed air would be below them as they collapsed. The bolts holding the floor joists would fail and the outer columns would peel away at or above the instantaneous collapse point. The trapped air could only escape between the floor pans and the outer columns and through the remains of the core/elevator shafts. Each floor would have more or less of a vent area depending on stairwell/elevator door positions and the proximity of the floor pan edges to the peeling outer columns. These same open/closed doors would distribute flow throughout the building. As in any other flow system, pressure would be distributed throughout but in this case the flows would be changing on an instantaneous basis as pathways were created and destroyed during the collapse. It is entirely conceivable that sufficient pressue was available to burst windows and that the pathways would allow unexpected pathways that burst windows multiple floors below the collapse point.
Had these been caused by explosives, you would have likely noticed more than just a few random puffs of dust and broken glass.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by PplV SNOW
 


While the bunch is talking about air blowing out debris take some talcum powder in one hand and slap your other down hard on the hand with talcum powder . End of demonstration . Now go and wash yourself off and start looking for what could have been the motive for demolition in the first place .
Look diligently and you will find that the World Trade Center Towers was a legal nightmare waiting to happen . Dust samples were taken from the furniture and allegedly tested for I believe 4% Asbestos . The Port Authority applied for permits according to that article to demolish the Towers and was rejected . It would cost 15 Billion to take them down or 200, 000,000 to encapsulate the asbestos . The Towers owned by the NY Port Authority was costing money and not profitable . Larry Silverstein leases the whole WTC and insures them for 3.2 Billion and stipulates coverage against terrorist destroying them . He then collects twice the amount because each plane was a separate event . Go figure that one . The exact place hit in the Pentagon and building 7 were the only places where the Pentagon budget was kept that showed 3 TRILLION dollars that could not be accounted for with all of those 6,000 dollar toilet seats . Coincidence ? Still where is the Motive for Mass Destruction ?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


First of all, you are assuming that the floors fell perfectly intact, without cracks in those floors for the air to escape from. Second, if those same windows could burst from the amount of pressure like you claim, each floor's windows would have burst as each floor was detaching from the core columns and slamming into the floors underneath of them, not searching through stairways looking for the perfect window to escape from. Third, are we forgetting that the core is hollow? If those floors were completely intact as they detached from the core, the air would surely find the gap created from the wall towards the core of the building being crushed as well as the floor above being cracked from impact of the floor above it slamming into it. Then what about the fact that the top of the building was open due to no roof being there any longer and in pieces on the ground?
Edit: I forgot that you said the outer part of the building was peeling away, which you claim doesnt open any air passages, the air would rather try to open metal doors of stairways and elevators instead.

edit on 23-12-2010 by OptimistPrime because: forgot some nonsense that he posted



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimistPrime
 


The floors were concrete on steel pans. If you would like them to crack and have air passages, that is ok with me. Note that I said "The trapped air could only escape between the the floor pans and the outer columnsand through the remains of the core/elevator shafts." As floor piled on floor and the mass increased, there would be less chance of a partial collapse.
The results are the same. The air cannot escape fast enough and eventually pops out windows -- no silent explosives needed.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


If the floors were not breaking up as they fell then when did they break up?

Can you show me ONE single steel floor pan in the rubble of the collapses?

So did the floor pans wait until the collapse was complete before they turned to dust?

You notice all the dust during the collapses right? Is that dust ejecting from the floors as they impacted, or after they impacted? Why is all that dust not being compressed and forced out on lower floors, if your hypothesis is correct? Or was that special air that decided to take a path of most resistance?



I can't believe people are still hanging on to this hoax. Could this have something to do with it....


(The Daily Cougar) (U-WIRE) HOUSTON -- While most Americans and U.S. policymakers generally support the sciences and technology, many of them are woefully ignorant of some of science's basic principles and discoveries, which hampers researchers' ability to make advances, a leading member of the scientific community said Monday.

www.highbeam.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Joists, not pans, so 4 inch thick lightweight concrete flooring will crack. Do some research before making uneducated claims. Take a tube with small holes with something blocking the small holes and then drop a plate with a large hole in it, and see if that plate can cause enough pressure to blow the blocks out of those smaller holes.
edit on 23-12-2010 by OptimistPrime because: more to add



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



My honest opinion is that you guys are never going to prove CD . I personally feel that your energy is entirely misdirected . You guys are so focussed and determined on proving CD , that you are all overlooking the obvious .


What do you support, that brought down the WTC?
If you don’t support controlled demolition and you certainly make this very clear then what is it you really support?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
My honest opinion is that you guys are never going to prove CD . I personally feel that your energy is entirely misdirected . You guys are so focussed and determined on proving CD , that you are all overlooking the obvious .


How do you explain all four walls of WTC 7 being on top of the rubble pile? This is impossible from a natural collapse, but fits perfectly with the classic method of controlled implosion. The easiest way to CD a building is to tip it to one side. The hardest way is straight down, implosion demolition.

The majority of WTC 7 landed in it's own footprint...



....Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

The last balded part is in reference to the 'penthouse kink', that would be the center columns collapsing ahead of the outer columns, allowing the outer walls to fall inwards instead of outwards.

The towers were not implosions demolitions, they're too tall and thin for that to work. That is why the rubble landed outside their footprints, but it was symmetrical in it's collapse. If there was any resistance at all then the collapses would not have been symmetrical (i.e. the collapse moved at the same rate at all points of the building, and the rubble was distributed equally 360 degrees).



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
If the floors were collapsing sequentially, the compressed air would be below them as they collapsed.


That would be if they stacked neatly. Have you ever seen anything from the collapse videos, rubble piles afterwards, or ANYTHING else to show that they floors neatly stacked one-on-another without the concrete shattering, the trusses being bent all to hell, any of those things which would allow air to escape above? Would like to see this, as otherwise your theory is pure crap.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I agree
when one is examining photos of the San Francisco earth quake and all those tall building that fell, one can see not a single building or concrete was pulverized to dust.
What we see in all the photos are slabs of broken concrete everywhere and there were parts of many buildings still standing, because building fall at the least resistance. Meaning we see half a building still standing because it is near impossible for every floor to break simultaneous at every corner. The only way to achieve this kind of visual pancake effect you would need demolition to be involved. Never before or after 911 has man ever witnessed a collapse like the WTC without explosives being used.
edit on 23-12-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
420
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join