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.

 

Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

page: 13
34
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Alfie1
 


If you want to have an intelligent discussion we have to have some sort of order here.


When we both ask a question, whose question gets addressed first and why: the person who asks first, or the person who comes along and starts asking a million of his own, without any of them answering the 1st question?

I can't get my hopes up though because I have a feeling more stupidity is on the way.


What questions have you asked of me ? I will endeavour to answer them.



I already asked the question I had and it only sent you on a binge of more rhetorical questions, none of which even beginning to answer my own.

So the least I can do is show your questions the same respect you showed mine, by pretending you didn't even post them. Not like it actually makes a difference since like I said, none of your questions could be expected to answer mine in the first place. Answering questions with more questions is just more calculated stupidity, and is what someone does when they have no real answer and can only stall.



I have asked you what was so special about WTC 6 that temperatures reached were enough to melt concrete but truthers never mention it ?


I'm asking the exact same thing buddy. What is so special about WTC6 that a gun is apparently encased in concrete now?


I'm asking for an explanation. Maybe you don't have one, and your first mistake was pretending that you did.
edit on 14-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Yankee451
A much smaller volume of aluminum wing with a density rating of 2.8 can't slice through a much larger volume of laterally reinforced structural steel with a density rating of 7.8. KE would be equally distributed between the two bodies, relative to their density and mass.


Only when you forget about the KE involved.....



I am well aware of the KE and that it will be equally distributed between the colliding bodies relative their density and mass. Do you disagree with that statement?

The interconnected steel of the building had arguably more mass than the wing, and the density of the steel was quite a bit more dense than the aluminum. The amount of aluminum in the wing isn't even close to the amount of steel used in just one of the many columns they claim were cut. You seem to think, based on some Kung Fu videos or something, that if you apply enough Kinetic Energy, any substance will cut through any other substance regardless of the densities, volume or mass. This is incorrect.

Take the Kung Fu videos (please). They use well trained and well placed blows to focus the energy of their strike through brittle materials. If their placement and center of gravity is off, they break their hand.

Do they try to snap reinforced structural steel? No. There is a limit to how much kinetic energy can be applied to their fists before their fists are damaged more than their target. Take that kung fu master and shoot him out of a cannon and have him hit that steel plate fist first at 733 feet per second. He'd be a kung POW master, and probably only leave a gooey dent.

Kinetic Energy can be very powerful, but density and mass matter and cannot be left out of the equation.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451Why are you still guessing?



You keep claiming this stuff as fact, so I want a demonstration of how you arrived at that conclusion.



You should have been able to find this stuff as easily as I have, especially since I've given it to you before:

Lopi Revere Stove
Construction
5/16" to 3/16" Steel Plate

Fracture toughness and yield strength of 767 wing

Density of commmon metals



Oh, I am so sorry, I didn't do a load of complex calculations that would have taken me hours to do, and hours to research, just so you could ignore it and shift the goalposts......

Once I get an ACTUAL estimate of the weight of the wing on the outside of the engine from a 767-200, I will gladly do the math for you.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Oh, I am so sorry, I didn't do a load of complex calculations that would have taken me hours to do, and hours to research, just so you could ignore it and shift the goalposts......

Once I get an ACTUAL estimate of the weight of the wing on the outside of the engine from a 767-200, I will gladly do the math for you.



You wouldn't know where to start, but it doesn't take science to know my stove would shear your wing right off.

This little exercise has shown that you don't know what you're talking about, and you don't want to know.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

I am well aware of the KE and that it will be equally distributed between the colliding bodies relative their density and mass. Do you disagree with that statement?


I'll agree.


Originally posted by Yankee451

The interconnected steel of the building had arguably more mass than the wing, and the density of the steel was quite a bit more dense than the aluminum.


Agree there too.


Originally posted by Yankee451
The amount of aluminum in the wing isn't even close to the amount of steel used in just one of the many columns they claim were cut. You seem to think, based on some Kung Fu videos or something, that if you apply enough Kinetic Energy, any substance will cut through any other substance regardless of the densities, volume or mass. This is incorrect.


Only when you think that the KE of the wing was applied over the ENTIRE column as a whole, when again, it was only a SMALL portion of the column.


Originally posted by Yankee451
Take the Kung Fu videos (please). They use well trained and well placed blows to focus the energy of their strike through brittle materials. If their placement and center of gravity is off, they break their hand.


Exactly the same thing will happen with an airplane wing. Take the wing, and rotate it 90 deg. from horizontal, and I will agree that the wing will most likely break.

Focus that energy into just a small portion (the leading edge) and you have a much stronger wing.



Originally posted by Yankee451
Do they try to snap reinforced structural steel? No. There is a limit to how much kinetic energy can be applied to their fists before their fists are damaged more than their target. Take that kung fu master and shoot him out of a cannon and have him hit that steel plate fist first at 733 feet per second. He'd be a kung POW master, and probably only leave a gooey dent.

Kinetic Energy can be very powerful, but density and mass matter and cannot be left out of the equation.


Ok, then please, explain to me how WATER, (which is obviously less dense than a human) can cut through structural steel? It's called KE.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Concrete would pop and spall from the heat of the fire because of water trapped in it , concrete is cement,sand,aggregate and water takes about 1500c to melt sand so the gun would have melted the concrete was more likely compressed around the guns by pressure.

After all someone on here commented on the Bejing Hotel fire becuase they thought it was a steel frame and the concrete survived that fire.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Thats the spirit JIM
will be back later as I have a life I am off out see you later J F ?


Whoosh, and then he was gone...I wonder if that's really Weedwhackerhooperfdny343blahblahblah...


LoL SORRY JIM your guess is wrong I am just little old me in the UK.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by FDNY343

Oh, I am so sorry, I didn't do a load of complex calculations that would have taken me hours to do, and hours to research, just so you could ignore it and shift the goalposts......

Once I get an ACTUAL estimate of the weight of the wing on the outside of the engine from a 767-200, I will gladly do the math for you.



You wouldn't know where to start, but it doesn't take science to know my stove would shear your wing right off.

This little exercise has shown that you don't know what you're talking about, and you don't want to know.



Please, since you seem to know the correct math etc. to use, please feel free to back up your claim that the stove would shear the wing in half.

(Don't forget to calculate for the weight of the fuel)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Whats up Jim no reply to this post!!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Whats up JIM does the info give you a chill re fire temps



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I have really lost track of what you are trying to say. Are you claiming that WTC 6 was the subject of some special attack that caused concrete to melt ? If so, why do truthers never mention it ?

If the material was indeed melted concrete, rather than baked and compacted gypsum and concrete dust, why does it encase unmelted guns with a lower melting point ?

What, in any event, does it signify in relation to the alleged cd of WTC 1,2 & 7 ?



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


The wings of a 767 are swept back 35 degrees, so the story requires they sawed through the columns. Impossible.

If impossible, what is possible?

Explosives? Is there any evidence to support that? Some.


letsrollforums.com...



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Tosskey
 





Even the Naudet film shows that the wing passed into the building without leaving a mark on the face of the building (impossible), with the gash being carved by explosives afterward.



Are you serious ? Can you please explain how the gash was carved out by explosives which also bent the external panels inwards ?
edit on 14-3-2011 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Tosskey
 





Even the Naudet film shows that the wing passed into the building without leaving a mark on the face of the building (impossible), with the gash being carved by explosives afterward.



Are you serious ? Can you please explain how the gash was carved out by explosives which also bent the external panels inwards ?
edit on 14-3-2011 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)


Must I? Why is it my job to come up with a full explanation? I'm just looking at the available evidence and calling BS to a plane. That building would have kicked a real plane's ass. Without physics, you're left with unreliable eyewitness accounts and what? Photographic evidence?

Can you tell me why any single photograph would be faked if this was a real event?



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Originally posted by ANOK
If ALL the steel used to construct the towers lost half its strength it would still stand.



Wanna show some math to back up that absurd claim?


Sure, all buildings are designed with a safety factor of at least x2. This means they can hold their own weight twice over. That is the minimum. So if it can hold twice it's own weight, then it could hold itself if it lost half its ability to hold that weight. Do you really need math to understand that?



Correct. However, when critical pieces are compromised, so is the safety factor.


What critical pieces were compromised? For the upper block to be able to crush the lower block then the lower block would have to have a safety factor of less then zero, zero being it can hold only its own weight and no extra.
This would also contradict the laws of motion.




Correct. However, you've quotemined that page. Have you seen the TTC for that?

Here it is.
en.wikipedia.org...
in_iso_astm_ul_curves.JPG

Can you explain what the TTC means?


What is that the TTC of? I didn't quote mine anything.


NCSTAR 1-3c also says very specifically that the sampling that they used was only 1% of the steel in the impact zone, and should not be used to determine the results from other parts of the building.


OK but its all we have right? You have no other evidence of heat above 250d, so you have NOTHING but assumptions and opinion.



They most certainly will. Look at the Cardington Fire Tests and download the raw temperature data. Take a look at some of those figures. They prove you wrong.


In what way? Please show this, don't just make a claim, prove it.

I was under the impression that the Cardington tests proved the WTC couldn't collapse from fire. They tested steel up to 1,000°C and they couldn't get anything to collapse.

Show me otherwise.


Only when you ignore that it wasn't just "soft steel", and it included lots of other things.


Soft or hard it doesn't matter. You still have less mass falling on a larger mass if you want to think of it as whole blocks and not individual floors. Whichever way you look at it Newtons laws still apply.


edit on 3/14/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Concrete would pop and spall from the heat of the fire because of water trapped in it , concrete is cement,sand,aggregate and water takes about 1500c to melt sand so the gun would have melted the concrete was more likely compressed around the guns by pressure.


This is what I'm talking about when I say people like you come up with imaginative and totally unscientific explanations, just whatever pops into your head first to reply to me, and you aren't actually contributing anything. How does concrete "compress" around something so as for it to become encased? "More likely" is just your cute way of admitting you're nowhere near a real investigation.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
I have really lost track of what you are trying to say.


All I am "saying" is a question, chief, and when you "say" a question it's called "asking." If you are looking for anything more than that then you are confused.


Are you claiming that WTC 6 was the subject of some special attack that caused concrete to melt ? If so, why do truthers never mention it ?


Are you answering my question with a question?

This goes back to: who gets an answer first, the person who asks first, or the person who has a million unrelated rhetorical questions immediately afterward?


Let's see how short we can make our attention spans, why not. So far yours apparently can't extend back beyond my last post.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Alfie1
I have really lost track of what you are trying to say.


All I am "saying" is a question, chief, and when you "say" a question it's called "asking." If you are looking for anything more than that then you are confused.


Are you claiming that WTC 6 was the subject of some special attack that caused concrete to melt ? If so, why do truthers never mention it ?


Are you answering my question with a question?

This goes back to: who gets an answer first, the person who asks first, or the person who has a million unrelated rhetorical questions immediately afterward?


Let's see how short we can make our attention spans, why not. So far yours apparently can't extend back beyond my last post.


Is your post supposed to mean something ? I did think, briefly, that you might wish to debate the realities of the situation but you clearly prefer word games; my mistake.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Tosskey
 





Even the Naudet film shows that the wing passed into the building without leaving a mark on the face of the building (impossible), with the gash being carved by explosives afterward.



Are you serious ? Can you please explain how the gash was carved out by explosives which also bent the external panels inwards ?
edit on 14-3-2011 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)


Must I? Why is it my job to come up with a full explanation? I'm just looking at the available evidence and calling BS to a plane. That building would have kicked a real plane's ass. Without physics, you're left with unreliable eyewitness accounts and what? Photographic evidence?

Can you tell me why any single photograph would be faked if this was a real event?





If you want to propose a scenario that only a handful of people on the planet could possibly subscribe to then , yes, you do have to come up with some explanation.

But, never mind, I sometimes think I should post on here as a counter to harmful and debilitating conspiracy conspiracies but, wtf, you must be doing an infinitely better job than me in turning people off.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 





If you want to propose a scenario that only a handful of people on the planet could possibly subscribe to then , yes, you do have to come up with some explanation.


Ahh...the Group Think angle. Good plan.

Where do you guys keep coming up with its my job to prove anything...I am not the one claiming a jet wing can cut structural steel columns like a hot knife through butter. Impossible; obvious to a barnyard animal.

It makes sense to look for other explanations and corroborating evidence. If you don't like the explosives angle for some reason, that's not my problem, I'm looking for answers supported by evidence. Your inability to stomach the information doesn't make it any less relevant.



But, never mind, I sometimes think I should post on here as a counter to harmful and debilitating conspiracy conspiracies but, wtf, you must be doing an infinitely better job than me in turning people off.


Laters.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Is your post supposed to mean something ? I did think, briefly, that you might wish to debate the realities of the situation but you clearly prefer word games; my mistake.


If that's what you want to call asking a question, fine.

Obviously you can't answer why these guns are apparently encased in concrete. For you, asking me a million other questions makes my question temporarily go away, only for you to hear me asking it again as soon as you are done with your rant. Sucks for you.

You can ask every question under the Sun, and I'll still be wondering why those guns are encased in concrete.




top topics



 
34
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join