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.

 

An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The airliners were less than 200 tons. The buildings were more than TWO THOUSAND TIMES the mass of the planes!


Hmmm. I guess bullets and arrows mustn't work in your world either.


Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Conspiracies are irrelevant.

psik


We agree on something.




posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The airliners were less than 200 tons. The buildings were more than TWO THOUSAND TIMES the mass of the planes!


Hmmm. I guess bullets and arrows mustn't work in your world either.


I have seen this idiotic crap before and before and before.

Nitwits compare inanimate bullets hitting animate masses like people and animals that have larger masses. What will a bullet do to a wooden telephone pole? Airliners are inanimate and skyscrapers are inanimate. Skyscrapers do not have hearts and muscles and knees that can bend.

psik



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
duplicate error NO delete?
edit on 13-2-2011 by psikeyhackr because: duplicate error



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I have seen this idiotic crap before and before and before.

Nitwits compare inanimate bullets hitting animate masses like people and animals that have larger masses.


Did I say anything about people and animals? Sheet metal would do just fine. Certainly a more accurate comparative representation than a telephone pole, don't you agree? Unless you're positing that the WTC were solid wood.

Real nitwits dismiss kinetic energy. Pitiful really



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   


But since the top 30 floors of the South Tower tilted over and started to fall as an intact segment (before it turned into very fine dust in space), it was no longer physically there to exert downward force and contribute to a "collapse".


This is an excellent point. If those who advocate the pancake collapse theory are to be believed, a bunch of finely powdered dust caused 80 floors of a massive steel framed skyscraper to collapse. This is the equivalent of taking this dust, sprinkling it on an 80 story building and watching it violently blow apart and collapse. That must have been some serious magic dust.



What will a bullet do to a wooden telephone pole?


In this scenario, I am more concerned about the damage sustained by the bullet than the telephone pole. Again remember, these were buildings which were designed to sustain multiple Boeing 707 airline strikes, 150 MPH hurricane force winds, bombs (which it did in '93 van bombing) and fires (which it did in the '75 three hour blaze).

Really good analogy.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


Psik posted:


Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by bsbray11
Or even more simply, illustrate the fact that the "planes and fires alone" theories were never proven to begin with, so no one can logically take the position that the burden of proof is on anyone else in the first place. The government never proved anything to begin with. That's the most important and relevant fact of this whole "movement" business imo.


That is the point right there.


And from the same post you latched onto a relatively trivial comment and used it to make an erroneous comparison.


Do you have nothing to say in defense of the government's total failure to conduct a competent investigation?



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


That is the point right there.

The airliners were less than 200 tons. The buildings were more than TWO THOUSAND TIMES the mass of the planes! We are supposed to BELIEVE the buildings could be TOTALLY OBLITERATED in LESS THAN TWO HOURS.


Yep, now, do the math for the kinetic energy involved in the impact, and do the math for the heat energy released by the fuel, and then the heat energy for the resulting fires.

Hell, a bullet weighs about .25 ounces. Most people weigh about 140 lbs. Which translates to 2240 ounces.

So, a bullet weighs just 1/8960th of a person, and it will kill you. I wonder, how could something so small kill us? I mean, we outweigh the bullet MANY times over. But yet, I don't think you wanna stand in front of one, do you?



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

This is an excellent point. If those who advocate the pancake collapse theory are to be believed, a bunch of finely powdered dust caused 80 floors of a massive steel framed skyscraper to collapse. This is the equivalent of taking this dust, sprinkling it on an 80 story building and watching it violently blow apart and collapse. That must have been some serious magic dust.


No, it's a TERRIBLE analogy. The entire contents of the tower did not instantly turn to dust. In fact, a very small portion of it did.

Do you think that the floors collapsing turned to dust as soon as it was struck from above?



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


But since the top 30 floors of the South Tower tilted over and started to fall as an intact segment (before it turned into very fine dust in space), it was no longer physically there to exert downward force and contribute to a "collapse".


This is an excellent point. If those who advocate the pancake collapse theory are to be believed, a bunch of finely powdered dust caused 80 floors of a massive steel framed skyscraper to collapse. This is the equivalent of taking this dust, sprinkling it on an 80 story building and watching it violently blow apart and collapse. That must have been some serious magic dust.


You're kidding, right? Are you actually suggesting the mass just disappeared...ceased to exist...magically transformed into nothing at all? Not even energy? You do realise that what you're proposing flies completely in the face of any known physics?

Just checking. Feel free to answer "yes" if this truly is what you believe.


Originally posted by SphinxMontreal


What will a bullet do to a wooden telephone pole?


[snip]

Really good analogy.


No, Really bad analogy! Hollow point vs. a tin would be a much closer analogy, a scalable one.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

I have seen this idiotic crap before and before and before.

Nitwits compare inanimate bullets hitting animate masses like people and animals that have larger masses.


Did I say anything about people and animals? Sheet metal would do just fine. Certainly a more accurate comparative representation than a telephone pole, don't you agree? Unless you're positing that the WTC were solid wood.

Real nitwits dismiss kinetic energy. Pitiful really


You brought up bullets. Are bullets famous for their usefulness against inanimate objects? Is that what guns were invented for? That is the kind of drivel keeps this issue unresoved for so long. It should have been settled in SIX MONTHS.

The WTC, Solid Wood? Just a further demonstration of your idiotic rhetorical debating techniques. When was the last time you saw a 1360 foot telephone pole? Skyscrapers began appearing in the late 1800s because the Bessemer Process made the cheap production of steel possible. The steel was necessary to support the tremendous load of tall buildings.

psik



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Fitzgibbon

And from the same post you latched onto a relatively trivial comment and used it to make an erroneous comparison.


The comparison was perfectly apt and applicable. Arguing a Fetzer-like belief that the planes should've bounced off the building a la Wile E. Coyote beggars description. It certainly betrays a clear disassociation with physical reality.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Do you have nothing to say in defense of the government's total failure to conduct a competent investigation?


The U.S government's investigation was fine. The lack of competency seems to lie in those who believe that airplanes should fold up like accordions.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

You brought up bullets. Are bullets famous for their usefulness against inanimate objects?


It's an analogy. A simple, straightforward one at that. Accessible to virtually anyone with an IQ north of room temperature. If you went off half-cocked and made an incorrect assumption, don't naysay me for calling you on it.


Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The WTC, Solid Wood? Just a further demonstration of your idiotic rhetorical debating techniques.


Your analogy. I just pointed out it's ridiculousness. Learn to scale your exemplars better than bullets vs. telephone poles.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by bsbray11
And from the same post you latched onto a relatively trivial comment and used it to make an erroneous comparison.


The comparison was perfectly apt and applicable.


So you think a bullet or arrow can cause structural failure. What were you just saying about people with IQs above such and such?..


The U.S government's investigation was fine. The lack of competency seems to lie in those who believe that airplanes should fold up like accordions.


From where I'm sitting, what the airplanes should have done is an auxiliary issue at best and no, the government reports were not "fine" because they failed to prove a damned thing after spending millions of dollars, and never even bothering to so much as test for explosives residues to follow up on any of the scores of witness testimonies.

Just show me what you think the government reports proved. If you're so sure you're right, you must have something pretty conclusive to back your opinions up, huh?



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by bsbray11
And from the same post you latched onto a relatively trivial comment and used it to make an erroneous comparison.


The comparison was perfectly apt and applicable.


So you think a bullet or arrow can cause structural failure. What were you just saying about people with IQs above such and such?.


Do I think it strange that an airplane punched through the relatively thin exterior of the WTC? No. Did I say the punch-through alone brought the WTCs down? No. Were they part of the chain? Yes. And the phrase was "north of room temperature".


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
The U.S government's investigation was fine. The lack of competency seems to lie in those who believe that airplanes should fold up like accordions.


From where I'm sitting, what the airplanes should have done is an auxiliary issue at best and no, the government reports were not "fine" because they failed to prove a damned thing after spending millions of dollars, and never even bothering to so much as test for explosives residues to follow up on any of the scores of witness testimonies.


What did they fail to prove in your eyes, BSB? That a massive injection of fuel and kinetic energy in the form of a couple of jumbo jets was not a pivotal in starting a massive, unfought conflagration that sufficiently weakened the structure to the point of failure?

What else do you need to add to the mix before you believe the WTCs rightfully should've come down? The hand of God smiting the wicked?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
An adequate theory of the demolition of the Twin Towers is going to have to be consistent with these findings:

The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the South, those buildings were stone cold steel, unaffected by any fires at all other than some very modest office fires that burned around 500 degrees F, which functioned as a massive heat sink dissipating the heat from building up on the steel.

The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees under optimal conditions; but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 1200.

Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significant effects, where these fires burned neither long enough or hot enough—at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North—to weaken, much less melt.

If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed. Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of any “collapse” sequence.

The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and began to fall to the side, when the floors beneath gave way. So it was not even in the position to exert downward pressure on the lower 80 floors. A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.

William Rodriguez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the sub-basements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a fifty-ton hydraulic press and the ripping of the skin off a fellow worker, where they filled with water that drained the sprinkler system.

Rodriguez observed that the explosion occurred prior to reverberations from upper floors, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, “Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job,” demonstrating that these explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds before the presumptive airplane impacts.

Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are not generally capable of “pancake collapse,” which normally occurs only with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor, as Charles Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.

The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece is very close to the speed of free fall with only air resistance, which Judy Wood, Ph.D., formerly a professor of mechanical engineering, has observed is an astounding result that would be impossible without extremely powerful sources of energy. If they were collapsing, they would have had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.

Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the buildings, the government’s account cannot possibly explain. There were no pancakes.

WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to “pull it,” displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, yielding a stack of pancakes about 5 floors high.

Had the Twin Towers collapsed like WTC-7, there would have been two stacks of "pancakes" equal to about 12% the height of the buildings or around 15 floors high. But they were actually reduced to below ground level. Since there were no "pancakes", there cannot have been any "pancake collapse" of either building, where the buildings were destroyed by different modes of demolition.

reply to post by wmd_2008
 



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
The more fragile and less dense object is not going to overcome the resistance of the less fragile and more dense object. The plane should have crumpled with some parts, such as the engines, entering the building, but the wings, the tail, bodies, seats and luggage should have broken off or fallen to the ground. This has been discussed rather extensively on the "Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11?" thread, so consult it for more elaboration of my views.

reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
You're kidding, right? Are you actually suggesting the mass just disappeared...ceased to exist...magically transformed into nothing at all? Not even energy? You do realise that what you're proposing flies completely in the face of any known physics?


Since when have the "truthers" been at all concerned about real world physics? They use bizarro world physics, nothing like the world we live in.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


That is the point right there.

The airliners were less than 200 tons. The buildings were more than TWO THOUSAND TIMES the mass of the planes! We are supposed to BELIEVE the buildings could be TOTALLY OBLITERATED in LESS THAN TWO HOURS.


Yep, now, do the math for the kinetic energy involved in the impact, and do the math for the heat energy released by the fuel, and then the heat energy for the resulting fires.

Hell, a bullet weighs about .25 ounces. Most people weigh about 140 lbs. Which translates to 2240 ounces.

So, a bullet weighs just 1/8960th of a person, and it will kill you. I wonder, how could something so small kill us? I mean, we outweigh the bullet MANY times over. But yet, I don't think you wanna stand in front of one, do you?


Completely illogical statement.
Does a bullet, which weighs 1/8960th of a person cause all the bones in the body to break and basically cremate so the body falls down into a lard ball?
Or does a bullet cause extreme interior damage to organs, muscles, etc and cause blood loss which in turn creates death?
Or it hits the heart or brain and the failure of either one of those cause death?

Try again.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The more fragile and less dense object is not going to overcome the resistance of the less fragile and more dense object. The plane should have crumpled with some parts, such as the engines, entering the building, but the wings, the tail, bodies, seats and luggage should have broken off or fallen to the ground.


The floor slabs were 4 inch thick concrete poured on corrugated steel pans supported by steel trusses. We are never told what those floor assemblies weighed but it is easy to compute that the concrete alone was 600 TONS. On the outer edge the floor assemblies were attached to horizontal spandrels welded to the columns.

The wings hit the buildings at various angles. How could a wing penetrate where it intersected with the edge of a floor assembly? I don't consider this extremely important but it is certainly peculiar.

It is the breaking off and tilt of the top of the south tower and the two greater than 50% of G "supposed" collapses that are the truly freakish incidents.

psik



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Let's see, you have two nearly identical buildings allegedly getting hit by two airliners at completely different locations, sustaining completely different types of damage. Are we really supposed to be stupid enough to believe that the two aforementioned separate occurrences would result in virtually identical types of failure to each structure?

And on top of that, you have the insurance carriers whipping out their check books and gladly paying billions to the assured without even challenging coverage, nor even bothering to investigate the reasons for their collapse. And if that wasn't absurd enough, the inexplicable collapse of WTC 7 caps off Mission Impossible by 19 cavemen using a few box cutters.
edit on 14-2-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join