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.

 

What are the most glaring flaws in the Popular Mechanics "debunking" of 9/11?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Oh, please...."only possible with explosives"??! Explosives that were planted, "how"? On the inside...but, blew "inward" too???


Yep the "truthers" and their supporters made the same mistake with the Pentagon wreckage, they can't quite seem to grasp that explosions from inside a building which blows outwards would look VERY different from impact damage!

And all the photos of the twin towers and Pentagon show impact damage NOT internal outward explosion damage.


edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


FFS Weedwhacker, allow a little literary license...I used "cartoon" to try to illustrate how absurd the story is; no need to split hairs on that term, is there? Or is there. The hole is roughly the shape of a jet, although not quite as wide as the actual jet, which is hard enough to explain because the TV version shows the jet disappearing in its entirety into the wall...wing tips and all. If the video is genuine it would show the wing tips shearing off, or it would show a hole the same width as the wingspan...you can't have it both ways, but that's a hair we'll split later I guess.

For our discussion, lets try to focus on the damage to the wall allegedly caused by the wing from the outside of the engine to the tip. Note the slices.

I have linked to a series of still shots from the Naudet film which shows that the sliced wall wasn't there after the wing passed through the wall. The film caught how the hole was created by explosives after the plane wing passed through the wall without making a hole.

This is impossible in real life, but quite possible in Hollywood.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Oh, please...."only possible with explosives"??! Explosives that were planted, "how"? On the inside...but, blew "inward" too???


Yep the "truthers" and their supporters made the same mistake with the Pentagon wreckage, they can't quite seem to grasp that explosions from inside a building which blows outwards would look VERY different from impact damage!

And all the photos of the twin towers and Pentagon show impact damage NOT internal outward explosion damage.


edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)


Valid question. Shaped charges outside the building could have been placed, but such speculation is premature when faced with the fact that wing tips can't disappear into a steel building without leaving a hole, and the Naudet film shows just that.

Wouldn't it be nice if you applied similar critical thinking to the aluminum wing vs laterally reinforced structural steel conundrum.

edit on 10-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Oh, please...."only possible with explosives"??! Explosives that were planted, "how"? On the inside...but, blew "inward" too???


Yep the "truthers" and their supporters made the same mistake with the Pentagon wreckage, they can't quite seem to grasp that explosions from inside a building which blows outwards would look VERY different from impact damage!



Looks like shaped charges or a wall breaching kit went bad thanks to a pipe and more re-bar than expected:





And all the photos of the twin towers and Pentagon show impact damage NOT internal outward explosion damage.


In fact, it is alleged the wings sliced through multiple columns of structural steel. I am looking for proof thereof.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one
.remember the Twin Towers were one of the first to employ the tube-frame structural design.


The tube design was not as unique to the twin towers as we are led to believe.

These are all tube design buildings...

DeWitt-Chestnut Apartment Building in Chicago, Illinois, completed in 1963.

John Hancock Center at 875 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, completed in 1968.

Willis Tower (formerly named, and still commonly referred to as Sears Tower) 108-story, Chicago, completed in 1974.

Petronas Towers (also known as the Petronas Twin Towers or KLCC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1998.

Jin Mao Tower, 88-story skyscraper Shanghai, People's Republic of China.

Burj Khalifa, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and is currently the tallest man-made structure ever built, at 828 m (2,717 ft).


Tube structures have since been used in many other later skyscrapers, including the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.[5] The strong influence of tube structure design is also evident in the construction of the current tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

It had NOTHING to do with the collapse of the towers.

edit on 3/10/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by iSunTzu

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by FDNY343
 


One hour of hydrocarbon fire, even with chimney effect, is not enough to weaken thousands of tons of steel to the point of complete failure, period. Not even enough time for the heat to transfer to the steel.




With all that steel acting like a gigantic heat sink, the OS is an insult to any thinking person's intelligence.

Go ahead replace your CPU heat-sink with a super Steel Heat-sink. WARNING, this will cook your CPU; don't do it.

Steel is not a heat sink; look it up. Wiki knows! One hour of an office fire is enough to destroy the strength of steel after the insulation was knocked off due to Kinetic energy impact. Physics prove it.


My steel wood burning stove proves your physics belongs in cartoons.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


One thing you also have to recall.
During the 1976 fire at the WTC, the floors affected were clad in that "evil" asbestos fireproofing. Some have said that had the entire complex of the WTCs been fireproofed in asbestos, instead of the cheaper blown on fireproofing, (that was sub-par according to some investigators), the WTCs would have not collapsed the way they did. There were many reports of substandard fireproofing used, or inadequate amounts placed on the critical areas, or they degraded over time. and it is well known that a light steel truss exposed to just a few minutes of office fires will begin to show signs of deformation and plasticity. Hence why firefighters always say, "Never trust a truss." There are pictures of some floor trusses where the fireproofing is half off, chipped, or very thin. Fire can rapidly affected even one small area where fireproofing is dislodged or damaged, especially on light steel guage trusses.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Oh, geeeeeze!!!


.... or a wall breaching kit ....


For what purpose??

Just how convoluted and complicated do you want to make this?? It is so obvious to everyone else....except the fringers, who are filling your head with this stupid stuff....brainwashing you, and you are falling deep into it.


WHY on Earth would (assuming a "fake", or "staged scene") "they" need to embellish with a hole like that...and only INVITE these sorts of wild accusations??


Your incredulity is borne of a common failing: When events occur that exhibit counter-intuitive results....other than anticipated, for whatever reason.


Confused people, overly paranoid as well.....and THEY are willing prey for the profiteers in this area, and topic, who are more than willing to beat the bushes to scare up more patsies, with their illogical fear mongering and paranoid-inducing nonsense......





edit on 10 March 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by iSunTzu
Steel is not a heat sink; look it up. Wiki knows! One hour of an office fire is enough to destroy the strength of steel after the insulation was knocked off due to Kinetic energy impact. Physics prove it.


Garbage, all conducting materials will act as a heat sink.

You do realise for fire to cause the collapse then the majority of the steel would have to be heated to failure, otherwise the unheated steel will take up the load?

You do know that buildings are built to hold their own weight more than once right? It's called a safety factor, and even if it was the lowest of 2x the building could lose 50% of it's strength and still hold its own weight.

One hour is not long enough time for enough heat to be transferred to the steel.

This is how hot a room fire will generally get, notice how long it take for a room to reach 1093°C. Remember also this was a test situation designed to reach max temperatures, which will not happen in a normal fire situation. One hour is not long enough to transfer enough heat to enough steel to cause any of it to fail.


Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C

www.doctorfire.com...

But what if the steel did all fail on the floors that were burning? You still have 80+ floors that were not damaged that would have created resistance to the collapse. Learn Newtons laws of motion, especially the third law, opposite and EQUAL reactions, very important to understand that law and how it applies to colliding objects.
30 floors can not crush 80 floors. The fact that there were no intact floors left after the collapse was finished proves the OS wrong.

BTW you seem to be another OS supporter with quick comments of no substance. If you want to deny what people are saying at least offer some kind of evidence for your claims.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


It had nothing to do with the collapses? Really? So designing a tower with columns on the exterior only and deep in the interior, with light steel trusses as the only horizontal support was not a factor in the way it collapsed?


there are some people that disagree with you:

www.blythe.org...:_World_Trade_Center_Design_Flaws


According to Malott, before the advent of the World Trade Center
towers, high-rise buildings shared two vital characteristics: one,
they were supported by a grid of steel columns, and two, the columns
were encased in a tough cladding of reinforced concrete. This
concrete created a fireproof skin designed to withstand a four-hour
inferno. (The four-hour rating is a building industry standard for
fireproofing) As designed by architect Minoru Yamasaki the Twin
Towers incorporated neither of these traditional features. These
features were found in most tall buildings before the Twin Towers
came along and changed the equation. Malott claims that it was the
failure to use the traditional steel column grid design and concrete
coating on the steel columns that was the fatal flaw of the
buildings--not the initial crashes, not the exploding jet fuel and
not the subsequent fire alone.

In an attempt to cut weight--which is the enemy of all high-rise
buildings--the designers of the Towers eliminated the traditional
steel column grid. Instead, Yamasaki placed the steel columns in the
perimeter of the outer walls of the buildings and in the perimeter of
the small inner core of the buildings that housed the elevator
shafts. This design allowed every floor to have unobstructed floor
space with no interior supporting columns or beams.

In further attempts to save weight, time and money designers were
allowed to fireproof the steel columns with spray-on mineral-wool
fiber and layers of sheetrock instead of the traditional method of
using reinforced concrete. The elevator shaft and the steel columns
in those shaft walls were covered with sheetrock as well.


And I do agree with the person in the article. Had the WTCs been built with the more robust and standard steel skeleton grid, like the Empire State Building, the WTC may have very well survived or partially collapsed. But with that "less is more" mindset of the day, have each floor wide open with zero vertical supports of the floors in between the interior-exterior, was just asking for problems. And then putting sheetrock and drywall around the core columns, instead of concrete, wasnt very smart, as drywall and sheetrock vs a plane impact is like throwing a drywall slab in front of a speeding freight train. Concrete covered columns would have stood up much better to impact and fires. So no, dont come here and say the design had nothing to do with the collapses. It had a LOT to do with them.

more here:


As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals. However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. . .


www.oilempire.us...

Of course, not too many people want to admit to building a potential death trap. And as usual it was a "cover your ass" game that is still being played by those responsible for the actual problems, including crappy insulation and bad engineering ideas. Do you realy think the Port Authority is going to admit that they blew it with the allegations of substandard fireproofing of the WTCs and the designs wtcritical flaws in them?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Logical one
.remember the Twin Towers were one of the first to employ the tube-frame structural design.


The tube design was not as unique to the twin towers as we are led to believe.

These are all tube design buildings...

DeWitt-Chestnut Apartment Building in Chicago, Illinois, completed in 1963.

John Hancock Center at 875 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, completed in 1968.

Willis Tower (formerly named, and still commonly referred to as Sears Tower) 108-story, Chicago, completed in 1974.

Petronas Towers (also known as the Petronas Twin Towers or KLCC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1998.

Jin Mao Tower, 88-story skyscraper Shanghai, People's Republic of China.

Burj Khalifa, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and is currently the tallest man-made structure ever built, at 828 m (2,717 ft).

It had NOTHING to do with the collapse of the towers.

edit on 3/10/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob


Do they also employ the spray on fire retardant that the twin towers had?
And how many of those buildings that you list have similarly been hit by speeding commercial fuel laden jets?



edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


So explain exactly how fast can heat from a 30ft long truss transfer into the remaining steel through two 5/8" bolts in slotted holes on both ends, into a seat, from the top chord of the truss



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
[Looks like shaped charges or a wall breaching kit went bad thanks to a pipe and more re-bar than expected:


First you "truther" guys try to convince us that the Pentagon was hit by a missile........but when that theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny it's now a "wall breaching kit!"

Well which is it a missile?........a wall breaching kit?

edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one
Do they also employ the spray on fire retardant that the twin towers had?
And how many of those buildings that you list have similarly been hit by speeding commercial fuel laden jets?


What has the spray on fire proofing got to do with anything? You claimed the towers were a unique design, I showed you they weren't, now you change the subject. But if you must it makes no difference, one hour is not long enough to cause enough steel to fail to cause complete collapse of a 110 story steel framed building. 30 floors can not crush 80 floors, the 30 floors would be destroyed themselves before they could destroy 80 floors, Newtons 3rd law, go learn it.

Why don't you relax and slow down, you have come here with your mind already made up, and you are obviously not listening to anything anyone is saying, just spreading BS that has already been covered a few thousand times. Why don't you spend some time reading to see where the discussion stands, so we don't have to keep going over the same old stuff again and again?


edit on 3/10/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

What has the spray on fire proofing got to do with anything? You claimed the towers were a unique design, I showed you they weren't, now you change the subject.

Why don't you relax and slow down, you have come here with your mind already made up, and you are obviously not listening to anything anyone is saying, just spreading BS that has already been covered a few thousand times.


Don't worry about me being relaxed dude I am!

Perhaps you would do well to read my post a little more carefully, I NEVER claimed they were of "unique "design I said they were ONE of the first to be constructed like this as opposed to the traditional method.

Now enough with your BS please!



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
 


So explain exactly how fast can heat from a 30ft long truss transfer into the remaining steel through two 5/8" bolts in slotted holes on both ends, into a seat, from the top chord of the truss


Huh how would I know that and why would I care?

Any metal touching metal is going to transfer heat, sorry you don't understand that.

Even if the steel didn't act as a sink one hour is still not enough time to cause complete failure of a building that is designed to hold its own weight many times over. Even if the whole building heated up, ALL the steel, it would still stand. Steel that is heated does not keep its shape until it decides to fail, it deforms, sags etc., before any failure we would see obvious deformation of the steel. The collapse would have been slow, and in stages, as hot steel was resisted by cold steel and weight is transferred etc.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by Yankee451
[Looks like shaped charges or a wall breaching kit went bad thanks to a pipe and more re-bar than expected:


First you "truther" guys try to convince us that the Pentagon was hit by a missile........but when that theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny it's now a "wall breaching kit!"

Well which is it a missile?........a wall breaching kit?

edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)


Have we met?

Did I stutter?




Looks like shaped charges or a wall breaching kit went bad thanks to a pipe and more re-bar than expected



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Have we met?



So when the" truthers" were telling everyone it was a missile!.........did you Yankee...say nope that's NO missile impact?

If you did then I'll admit you may not be as dumb as sound!



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one
Perhaps you would do well to read my post a little more carefully, I NEVER claimed they were of "unique "design I said they were ONE of the first to be constructed like this as opposed to the traditional method.

Now enough with your BS please!


LOL you call BS after two post to you, already got the debunker attitude huh? You haven't even had time to really read and check on what I've said.

Look brother I've been debating this now for a few years, I know the OSer arguments backwards, I know the 'it was a unique design' BS argument. Maybe you don't, and are just posting stuff you've seen other OSers post, but don't really understand the point?

I will ignore you now unless you actually have something of substance to add to the discussion.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 



But let's just say for arguments sake it was a controlled demolition........any demolition professional will tell you that there will always be cables, strapping and anchors left over in the rubble........any controlled demolition of such tall buildings would have been littered with these items.
How come there is no evidence of such items in the rubble?


That is a good question, and I don't have a solid answer, except they supposedly never found the black boxes either, and those had homing beacons. That was a lot of rubble. Perhaps they used minimal explosives with radio detonators and no cabling? Perhaps the nan-thermite theory has legs? Perhaps they did find some and they covered it up?

I have plenty of material to dispute the fire theory for the collapse, but unfortunately I don't have a lot of material to support any alternatives.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join