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: 27
13
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The NIST does not explain how the collapse progressed. They only say it was inevitable.


AHEM!!

Very first question.



Originally posted by psikeyhackr

It is the 9/11 RELIGION.

The IMPOSSIBLE does not need to be EXPLAINED. We are just supposed to BELIEVE.



Throw the Laws of Physics out the window and pretend the distributions of steel and concrete are irrelevant.

psik


Arguments from personal ignorance noted.




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And then people say WTC7 didn't actually fall into its own footprint because some crumbs fell into the adjacent streets, like who would ever imagine such a thing happening during a demolition, right?


Explain the US Post office damage, the damage to the Verizon Building, and the ROOF of Fitterman Hall? You think CRUMBS did that? Those a 3 DIFFERENT buildings on three DIFFERENT sides of the street.



Originally posted by bsbray11
You see the footprints, there is literally nothing even resembling a building in either of them anymore all the way down to the ground level, and yet you STILL want to imagine that nothing significant was ejected.


Since I am assuming that you are speaking of 1&2 WTC, you seem to be forgetting that they had EXTENSIVE basements in both buildings.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
If you had read a damned thing on wtc.nist.gov you would understand that pancaking was not the COLLAPSE INITIATION, however, it WAS how collapse PROGRESSED.



NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively [sic] that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.


wtc.nist.gov...


I'm not going to play teacher to a kid that's too distracted to actually learn anything, but there it is in black and white.


Thank God you're not playing teacher, since by the end of class, the students were be more dumb than when they entered the classroom.

THIS IS TALKING ABOUT COLLAPSE INITIATION!!! GD!!!


Originally posted by bsbray11

When you're going off on these long rants that are completely based off of pancake theory, you're only embarrassing yourself when you then bring up NIST in your next post. They are mutually exclusive. That means the initiation hypothesis that NIST never verified and the global collapse they never even tried to analyze.


Progressive Pancake collapse would be a better description, but hey, it's cool.

Do you wonder why they didn't try to model such a chaotic and random event?

Too

Many

Variables


It doesn't matter why Column 47's splice plate failed before column 46, since either way, the collapse had already began, and as Bazant et al. have shown, the collapse could not have been arrested by the lower floors.

Have a problem with that? Please feel free to write a paper showing what Bazant got wrong, and submit it for publication in the JOM. I am sure he would love to see it.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Arguments from personal ignorance noted.


Pretense that the information is available noted.

The NIST can't even specify the total amount of concrete in 10,000 pages.

psik



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by FDNY343
Arguments from personal ignorance noted.


Pretense that the information is available noted.

The NIST can't even specify the total amount of concrete in 10,000 pages.

psik


Maybe because for their research, it was irrelevant? Or maybe because it is completly irrelevant?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Irrelevant? What, the report or the concrete?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by FDNY343
Arguments from personal ignorance noted.


Pretense that the information is available noted.

The NIST can't even specify the total amount of concrete in 10,000 pages.


Maybe because for their research, it was irrelevant? Or maybe because it is completly irrelevant?


ROFL

That is the kind of response that shows how idiotic this NINE YEAR circus has been.

The NIST report specifies the total amount of steel in three places. Didn't the steel have to hold up the concrete and everything else? So didn't the amount and distribution concrete have to affect the amount and distribution of steel?

For the NIST to not have specified the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of both towers within a year of 9/11 is beyond absurd. I have no comprehension of the psychology of people that can believe the Official Conspiracy Theory.

After nine years 9/11 is a HUGE psychological problem. How many Millions of people would have to explain how they believed something REALLY DUMB all of that time? You don't build 1300 skyscrapers without figuring out how to distribute the steel and concrete.

psik
edit on 15-3-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

UNDERLINED ABOVE you are contradicting yourself mate BECAUSE you keep stating that the load meets an equal an oppsite force DO YOU NOT, so as the taking your example 55 floors below have always held up the 55 floors above NOTHING would happen under your physics because when you are talking about 9/11 YOU GUYS NEVER TAKE INTO ACCOUNT


Not at all. If the dropping floor is crushing the impacted floor, and both are destroyed, then 55 floors could crush 55 floors right? Simple math. 30 floors would run out of floors before 80 floors.


1) The damage done by impact, fuel exploding and also the fire.


Had NO effect on the building below the impact point.


2) The load imposed on the structure below WHEN THE TOP PART FALLS IS NOT THE SAME as the static load it supported under normal conditions


No it isn't, but you keep ignoring the buildings safety factor which means every building component could hold more than its own weight by at least x2. So a floor should not automatically fail if more weigh is added to it.
It's not only weight needed to cause the static floors to also collapse, you need energy to break the many fasteners and welds also.


3) You also do NOT take into account the floors are basically bolted to pieces of angle iron on the inside of the structure a bad design!!!


It's a bad design? According to who? Funny but that design is still used for modern high rises. You must think structural engineers are stupid.


My example to you of the 100lb weight obviously went over your head it was to show the effect of a DYNAMIC LOAD ie you can carry it but if its dropped into your hand IT DOESN'T FEEL THE SAME DOES IT!


LOL that is not an example of the floors falling in a building. Floors were falling on floors, as I replied to you before that is not a good analogy for a building collapse. There was not a huge massive weight dropping on a soft hand. The floors were of more or less equal mass. Like I said before, 30 hands falling on 80 hands is a better analogy, if you can't see the distinction then it's not my fault.

Regardless your hand will put as much load on the 100lb weight as the weight puts on your hand, Newtons 3rd law. You feel the weight because it's your hand.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Irrelevant? What, the report or the concrete?


Nice quotemine. Go back and read the entire post, including the quoted post.

Then you will understand context.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Not at all. If the dropping floor is crushing the impacted floor, and both are destroyed, then 55 floors could crush 55 floors right? Simple math. 30 floors would run out of floors before 80 floors.


Where did the damaged rubble go?



Originally posted by ANOK

No it isn't, but you keep ignoring the buildings safety factor which means every building component could hold more than its own weight by at least x2.


But yet, does this account for the static load, or a DYNAMIC load? Also, does this account for the 15 floors ABOVE it that have had their contents sent crashing to the lowest portion?

It doesn't work the way you want it to.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Thank God you're not playing teacher, since by the end of class, the students were be more dumb than when they entered the classroom.

THIS IS TALKING ABOUT COLLAPSE INITIATION!!! GD!!!


Learn to read:


Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.


wtc.nist.gov...


It doesn't say "during initial only." If floors were pancaking then that would automatically mean you were already past initiation.


Need more hints?



Progressive Pancake collapse would be a better description, but hey, it's cool.


And that's the term NIST used, but saying it was therefore a pancake collapse is saying a fruit is an apple. An apple is a fruit but not always the other way around. NIST has explicitly contradicted pancake theory in particular in itself mechanisms and that's why you're wrong for posting like pancake theory is still legitimate.

And before you ask, what theory did NIST offer instead of pancake theory? None, because they didn't analyze the global collapse. There's what your tax money got you. But you didn't read the report apparently so what difference does it make to you anyway.


Have a problem with that? Please feel free to write a paper showing what Bazant got wrong


More educated people than myself already have, so what's the point in beating a dead horse? Bazant assumes 50-95% of the total mass of either tower remains in the footprint the whole time, and his model is dependent upon that. That and a photo of Ground Zero is all you need to know his model is crap.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So how big should the footprint be for a 1450 ft high building! Please let us know!



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
So how big should the footprint be for a 1450 ft high building! Please let us know!


Us?


Considering the dimensions of the tower footprints are violently obvious, I guess you don't know what the word "footprint" even means in this context.

The footprints were 208 ft. by 208 ft. each.


Here's a picture to help you understand:




See where the image shows "original footprint"?

Yeahhh, that's what we mean by "footprint."



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Well, then obviously the towers did not fall in their footprint. Debris was spread all over the Trade Center complex.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Well, then obviously the towers did not fall in their footprint. Debris was spread all over the Trade Center complex.


Thanks for proving my point.

Hardly any debris at all was left in the footprints. The debris pile didn't extent beyond where the lobbies used to be, and that's including still-intact core and perimeter structure at the lobby level.

I bet you're not so peppy now that you realize you're agreeing with me, huh.
edit on 15-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


If this was a gravity based collapse, what could produce enough lateral energy to move multi-ton girders hundreds of feet?
edit on 15-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: yards to feet



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
If this was a gravity based collapse, what could produce enough lateral energy to move multi-ton girders hundreds of yards?


Not only that. If it was gravity-based, then what in the hell kind of mass was driving the collapse if there is no stack of floors or much of anything else at the bottom in the end?

The "collapse" of all the debris wasn't straight down as much as it was in projectile arcs outwards in all directions.
edit on 15-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Must have been planes. Nothing else makes sense.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 

Hey everyone! Ghaddaffi is a Jew!
....
...
..
.
www.bollyn.com...

Ahem.

AIR PRESSURE caused the girders to blow out of the towers, subsequently taking out multiple peripheral buildings, by causing untold fires to spontaneously erupt in said buildings. In physics, this is known as, "collaborative damage".

You can trust me, I am with the government.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


Stewie! Welcome to the fray. Now that you mention it, he does look Jewish...

I trust you brother, I feel better already.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join