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: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





Yes they do. The trusses are what gave the whole building the support it needed to stand.


Look at my avatar. That's an image of the Twin Towers during construction...free standing, no trusses needed.

The sunrise was replaced by an image of a large fuel bomb, but you get the picture.

Edit: I should clarify this to say no floors needed. I can't verify there aren't trusses, just no floors.
edit on 11-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Oh boy, did you know that they layed the floors down while they were building up? What you are looking at is the whole structure, with the floor trusses already installed.



The floor trusses were already installed when your avatar picture was taken.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Oh boy, did you know that they layed the floors down while they were building up? What you are looking at is the whole structure, with the floor trusses already installed.



The floor trusses were already installed when your avatar picture was taken.


Yes, thanks for pointing that out, I realized that error when I pulled the trigger on the post, and corrected it.

I've seen the image of the construction you linked to, but how else can you explain the light coming through?

Perhaps the trusses for the floors were in place but there are quite a few floors which weren't installed at the time of this photo, hence the light shining through, and you can see both towers are fully framed...so what did they do, install the floors on the way up and then remove them as they finished installing the trusses and exterior walls on the way up? I don't know...I'm asking. From a building management perspective this would be cost effective, only adding floors as you need them...IE when the space is leased. Did they take the floors out as they moved up?



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



I've seen the image of the construction you linked to, but how else can you explain the light coming through?


The exterior aluminum cladding had not yet been installed. It was kind of the last major structural element. The floor slabs were placed as the work progressed vertically. Somewhere out there is an old but excellent and detailed film about the design and construction of the towers. Not a "fluff" piece for general consumption, but a documentary put together for engineers and designers. I remember seeing it in school.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451
 



I've seen the image of the construction you linked to, but how else can you explain the light coming through?


The exterior aluminum cladding had not yet been installed. It was kind of the last major structural element. The floor slabs were placed as the work progressed vertically. Somewhere out there is an old but excellent and detailed film about the design and construction of the towers. Not a "fluff" piece for general consumption, but a documentary put together for engineers and designers. I remember seeing it in school.


What are you talking about exterior cladding for?

I'm talking about missing floors. Where are they? They were supposedly installed as they moved up, as the above linked image shows.

Where are the floors?



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
www.lopistoves.com...
Construction
5/16" to 3/16" Steel Plate

Your squirming would be amusing if less was on the line. I tell you what, you come here and deform my stove with wood and a little airflow...that I'd love to see.


Please send it to me. I will give you an address to send it to via U2U.


Originally posted by Yankee451
After you've succeeded in creating whatever optimal conditions are needed to make a furnace strong enough to "deform" the steel, then you can demonstrate how air flow and combustible material conditions were optimal in the WTC and capable of not just "deforming" tens of thousands of times the steel,


Optimal? Hardly.


Again, the fires in the WTC did not need to deform tens of thousands of times the steel. Go read the NIST report and try to understand it.


Originally posted by Yankee451
but of reducing it to a smoking pile of pieces most of which were conveniently-sized to fit on a truck.


Um, you do realize that the 30 foot sections (since I am assuming that is what you are referring to) are because a column 1000 feet tall would be impossible to forge, and impossible to transport, and impossible to install.

30' was also the size of the truck that they used to get the steel INTO the city!! OOPS!! Gotta get it there somehow!



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


That's quite a jig you're dancing there FDNY343.

But it doesn't address your explanation of how your silly aluminum wing can cut my wood stove in half by applying enough KE, does it?

The claim is a wing cut the columns (plural) in half. KE, V, M proves that's BS, and I've included other information and links as more proof; but other than claiming all it takes is to increase the "KE" (it doesn't), you have provided nothing but evasions.


edit on 12-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: clarified sentence



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Your words on the matter:


Originally posted by FDNY343 It could work. I mean, if it wasn't so damn expensive. Aluminum alloys hold up a cars weight, why couldn't they make a sledge hammer out of aluminum alloys?

Yes, you're right, they don't. And do you wonder why that is? I can tell you.

Weight.

The weight of the sledge is what does the most work if you are doing it properly. (Notice I said properly) The KE of a steel sledge being swung is much more than one made of aluminum.

You would need to swing the aluminum one with much more force to do the same work.

And yes, i've used sledge hammers many times.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So according to you, only the weight is the deciding factor and it would do the same job as steel but you'd have to work twice as hard. This is of course ignoring that the density of steel is about 7.8 (g/cm³) while the density of aluminum alloy is about 2.8 (g/cm³). The density of material coupled with the amount of material dictates its weight. So the reason aluminum sledges aren't made...and aluminum bullets too, which travel a wee bit faster than you can swing a sledge, is not just because of the weight, but its also because the material won't maintain its integrity at impact as well as more dense materials.


Yep, my words exactly. However, I will eat some crow on this.

THEY DO MAKE ALUMINUM SLEDGE HAMMERS!!!

www.fastenal.com...

It is used in areas where sparks need to be kept to a minimum.

So, what were you saying? No aluminum sledges?


Originally posted by Yankee451

I seriously doubt you've ever used a sledge hammer. Anyone reading your tripe should be duly insulted.


Ok, you are free to believe whatever you want.


Originally posted by Yankee451
I don't have anything against any of the people in the countries you listed, and I wouldn't wish such a thing on even my worst enemy.

I do agree we should take care of our own though. We need to invite the world to try our leaders for crimes against humanity and we as the enablers need to pay reparations to the survivors of the victims.


Good luck with that.


Originally posted by Yankee451
Density of material coupled with kinetic energy. The picket material is denser than the fibrous trunk of the palm...not to mention a sharp, pointy tip.


No, it's really not. But, keep going. It's funny to watch....


Originally posted by Yankee451
But let's keep you honest, shall we? How fast would that picket need to go to cut the tree down if it hit the tree sideways instead of from either end?


I don't know honestly. I would need more details about the tree and picket.


Originally posted by Yankee451
When the point hits the tree at velocity, the entire mass of the picket is behind the impact point. If it hit sideways, there's significantly less mass backing up the impact point...which is why you never see a picket cutting a tree down.


Now, take that picket and slow it down to 20 mph? Does it still impale itself into the tree? Not likely. Not enough velocity.


Originally posted by Yankee451
Now, what would happen to that picket if it hit sideways on several palms attached together with spandrel connections and laterally reinforced with more palm trees?


Can you name the logical fallacy you are using here?



Originally posted by Yankee451
It's all the same stuff man...these are the laws of nature, not mine. KE, V, M in this case.

If that scoop of water wasn't dumped on the car all at one time, it would not have damaged it like that...the same amount of water would have been dropped, but no damage. By concentrating the water's MASS into a scoop, the mass of water strikes the car with enough concentrated force to crush the thin, soft aluminum


But, you keep saying "density" over and over.....So, maybe you should stop saying that?

Not to mention that the roof of that car, is not aluminum. It's steel.



Originally posted by Yankee451
of the car before the water's integrity is lost and it splashes harmlessly to the ground. Concentrating the mass is like making the water more dense. If the water was dropped from twice the height, much of it would be displaced by the air as it fell, making it less massive and likely to do less damage...it will only damage the car if enough water hits it at the same time. Exchange the car with my wood stove, and I'd be interested to see if there would be any damage.


No, the desity of the water is the same. It is the MASS that is making this work.

I would be willing to bet that your wood stove would suffer about the same results.


Originally posted by Yankee451
The reason the water doesn't plow right through the car and make a crater is because it doesn't have enough density of material to do it. Contain the same amount of water in something with enough density to maintain its integrity at impact, and the damage would be much worse.


Correct. Not to mention that water is a fluid....


Originally posted by Yankee451
Pressure. Same as the scoop of water focusing the mass of the water into a concentrated area, but in this case the water jet concentrates the water at extremely high pressure (akin to density) to a tiny point...KE, V, M. Without the pressure, that water will only cause a little rust on the steel.


Correct again. Wow, you're doing pretty good....sort of......


Originally posted by Yankee451
Please explain.


If you don't understand that the density of the material doesn't really matter when you put enough KE behind it, there is no hope.


Originally posted by Yankee451
I stand corrected. You never said you are looking for investors in a start up company which makes aluminum bullets and sledge hammers, that was me. The rest is all you.


That's fine by me.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
What we all noticed was that they dumped this alleged evidence in a land fill. If this was a real crime scene it would have been taken apart like an archaeological dig.


Oh, you mean like the forensic guys from various LE agencies that sifted through the rubble at Fresh Kills with their bare hands?

You mean like that?

Ok, cool. They did.

Moving on.......



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
Yes, thanks for pointing that out, I realized that error when I pulled the trigger on the post, and corrected it.

I've seen the image of the construction you linked to, but how else can you explain the light coming through?

Perhaps the trusses for the floors were in place but there are quite a few floors which weren't installed at the time of this photo, hence the light shining through, and you can see both towers are fully framed...so what did they do, install the floors on the way up and then remove them as they finished installing the trusses and exterior walls on the way up? I don't know...I'm asking. From a building management perspective this would be cost effective, only adding floors as you need them...IE when the space is leased. Did they take the floors out as they moved up?


This is absolutely HILARIOUS!! How do they get the floor trusses back IN the building? I mean, it's not like they were foldable.....

The reason that you do not see the floor trusses is because they are relitively thin compared to the building as a whole. The light is going around them, but because it was taken at such a distance, you cannot see the floors.

Find the original source for that picture, and zoom in. ALL the way in. You will see that there is very thin lines of darkness.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
 


That's quite a jig you're dancing there FDNY343.

But it doesn't address your explanation of how your silly aluminum wing can cut my wood stove in half by applying enough KE, does it?

The claim is a wing cut the columns (plural) in half. KE, V, M proves that's BS, and I've included other information and links as more proof; but other than claiming all it takes is to increase the "KE" (it doesn't), you have provided nothing but evasions.


edit on 12-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: clarified sentence

\
Only when you don't understand physics.....



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Touche on the light weight sledges! No need to look up a use for aluminum bullets, you've made your evasive point. I wouldn't recommend their use against steel, but I stand corrected. Bravo.

Would that you would apply such research into your "kinetic energy trumps all, regardless of mass and volume" theory though.

For you to be right about that, you would need to demonstrate Newton is wrong, but I'm all about correcting the record when I've made a mistake.


edit on 12-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: volume



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
OP, are you talking about the Popular Mechanics article written by a guy with the name of Benjamin Chertoff? This is the same last name as the former Government guy who has made a ton of money screwing over innocent Americans. The same guy who was responsible for releasing certain dubious and suspicious characters who were captured by law enforcement on 9/11? Of course, the same last name is just a coincidence and does not have anything to do with a conflict of interest.


Regardless of the identical last names, the Popular Mechanics article is just a fictional snuff piece by lamestream media which is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at damage control. You see, the truth does not need Mr. Benjamin Chertoff and his damage control expertise. Lies and half-truths, on the other hand, can use all the help they can get - especially from a bunch of disreputable characters.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ANOK

Or that it landed mostly in its own footprint, as evidenced in post collapse pictures that all four outer walls landed on top of the collapsed building as in a classic implosion demolition.


...and as it's already been pointed out to you many times before, WTC 7 collapsed from the inside out, with the penthouse falling down into the interior six seconds before the exterior of the structure did. No other controlled demolitions job on the planet has ever demolished a building in this way.

You of course know this, but it's obvious you want these conspiracy stories of yours to be real so you simply pretend you don't see it. This stunt may work on an ATS discussion board but you have to know you're going to get severely spanked if you try to bring this absurdity to any future investigation board.


please show where... 1 OTHER SKYSCRAPER COLLAPSE, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, ANYTIME IN THE HISTORY OF BUILDING where a steel re-inforced concrete building feel striaght down in seconds due to fire.
you have none, the NIST has none....because it has never happened, period.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

I am sure you've seen it before, but go read the fireman's prayer. It's very true. We wouldn't be in the fire service if we were not willing to put our lives on the line, and possibly give our life "So that others may live".


So so true.........I applaud anyone that puts their lives on the line to save others.......but to do it day in and day out...............24/7.........I bet most fire fighters would go into rescue mode if they happen come across a fire or serious accident even on their day off.

Whatever your thoughts about 9/11 I think everyone should applaud these boys and girls in the fire services the world over.

edit on 12-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Yankee451
Yes, thanks for pointing that out, I realized that error when I pulled the trigger on the post, and corrected it.

I've seen the image of the construction you linked to, but how else can you explain the light coming through?

Perhaps the trusses for the floors were in place but there are quite a few floors which weren't installed at the time of this photo, hence the light shining through, and you can see both towers are fully framed...so what did they do, install the floors on the way up and then remove them as they finished installing the trusses and exterior walls on the way up? I don't know...I'm asking. From a building management perspective this would be cost effective, only adding floors as you need them...IE when the space is leased. Did they take the floors out as they moved up?


This is absolutely HILARIOUS!! How do they get the floor trusses back IN the building? I mean, it's not like they were foldable.....

The reason that you do not see the floor trusses is because they are relitively thin compared to the building as a whole. The light is going around them, but because it was taken at such a distance, you cannot see the floors.

Find the original source for that picture, and zoom in. ALL the way in. You will see that there is very thin lines of darkness.



Slow down...read it again.



Perhaps the trusses for the floors were in place but there are quite a few floors which weren't installed


Actually when zoomed in, you can see the cladding is being installed, and the very thin lines you describe are the spandrel plates which the floors are supposed to attach to. This image may be hard to see,



but there are better ones here:

letsrollforums.com...



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Only when you don't understand physics.....


reply to post by FDNY343
 


Pay close attention to the last sentence...the one that includes "changes of the velocities made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the bodies".


LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. — Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other. If a body impinges upon another, and by its force changes the motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, toward the contrary part.

The changes made by these actions are equal, not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For, as the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the bodies.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

please show where... 1 OTHER SKYSCRAPER COLLAPSE, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, ANYTIME IN THE HISTORY OF BUILDING where a steel re-inforced concrete building feel striaght down in seconds due to fire.
you have none, the NIST has none....because it has never happened, period.



So let me get this straight......... the 911 conspirators chose to demolish a building in such a way so as to invite doubt about it being authentic

Now why would they do that?

edit on 12-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by jimmyx

please show where... 1 OTHER SKYSCRAPER COLLAPSE, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, ANYTIME IN THE HISTORY OF BUILDING where a steel re-inforced concrete building feel striaght down in seconds due to fire.
you have none, the NIST has none....because it has never happened, period.



So let me get this straight......... the 911 conspirators chose to demolish a building in such a way so as to invite doubt about it being authentic

Now why would they do that?

edit on 12-3-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)


Because people will believe the TeeVee before they'll apply their common sense or logic, Logical one




top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join