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

reply to post by Yankee451

History is filled with people who don't know history, repeating all the mistakes of their trusting and gullible forebears.

LOL. Next you will try to give me a history lesson. And will fail miserably.

reply to post by Yankee451


Ah the dislodged panel ......

You said it must have been dropped by a crane

If so why do no witness report a crane in the area. Kind of hard to hide one

Or from back of a truck - again a crowded street in Manhattan, why no witnesses? At this time of morning
would be thousands of people there. Would it not be suspect dropping such an object in the street?

As for the bolts holding the panels together - the impact of the aircraft hitting would A) A Stripe the nuts
off the bolts or B) Lateral force applied would snap the bolts causing them to fall out

As for vehicle fires - cascade of burning jet fuel and debris ignited the initial vehicle fires

Answer this - Why in Japan did the tsunami set numerous vehicles on fire - after all would not everything be
wet?

www.youtube.com...

30 seconds in - numerous vehicles on fire from tsunami

reply to post by Yankee451


Now back to the USS Hinsdale

The Kamikaze which struck it was a Ki 61 "TONY"

en.wikipedia.org...-61_units

Look close at picture



Notice the cuts inflicted by the wings, the section outboard the fuselage This is one of the strongest parts of the aircraft with heavy ribs and spars to give sufficent strenght to support the fuel tanks

Now image a Boeing 767 weighing some 40 times that, traveling at twiice ths speed

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Excuse me? Did you step in any of that?

Good grief, is that the best you can do when you've been bitch slapped?

You were claiming the acres of pulverized concrete came from all the "pancaked" floors that existed in your world, weren't you? I show you a link which appears to show what now? I want to hear you say it, Missy.

The only person being bitch slapped is you, even your avatar shows the fact they didn't have a concrete core

Funny you guys tend to claim the towers fell in their own footprint now you say acres of pulverised concrete well it wasn't all pulverised but there was 110 acres of concrete floor to start with or have you forgot that as well.

Anyone reading through the posts will see that your the child and getting slapped not me

reply to post by thedman

You said it must have been dropped by a crane

No, I said it looks like it was dropped from a crane or truck, not from several dozen stories up. Look at the image with the Flag in it. Notice the shattered sidewalk? No? Me either. All you KE geniuses out there should be able to figure out the amount of energy that baby had when it hit the ground, eh?

Or from back of a truck - again a crowded street in Manhattan, why no witnesses? At this time of morning would be thousands of people there. Would it not be suspect dropping such an object in the street?

Again with the thousands of people there. I didn't see one witness in either photo. So, you tell me...where are all those thousands? How many eye witnesses saw it crash to the ground? How do you know what time of day it is, or even what day it is? Were you there? Did they dig it out and use it as evidence? No? Bummer for you then, stop posting this tripe as proof of anything.

As for the bolts holding the panels together - the impact of the aircraft hitting would A) A Stripe the nuts off the bolts or B) Lateral force applied would snap the bolts causing them to fall out

This is an exterior panel. Are you claiming the wheel had enough energy to punch the thing out of the wall after it already crashed through the whole building? Why would you think that? Do you see how massive that panel is compared to the wheel? After falling 6-800 feet, the panel didn't have enough energy to knock the wheel out? Where's the stinking crater? What aircraft could cause the dented columns shown below?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/24e4da0adf94.jpg[/atsimg]

As for vehicle fires - cascade of burning jet fuel and debris ignited the initial vehicle fires

I certainly didn't see a cascade of burning jet fuel in any of the impact shots, where was that? I saw fuel air explosions. Can you provide a link that shows this cascade of jet fuel please?

If you look at the images, they look staged...is the fire in the background for dramatic and emotional impact, like the American flag is in the other image?

Answer this - Why in Japan did the tsunami set numerous vehicles on fire - after all would not everything be wet?

I can't imagine how a bunch of vehicles with internal combustion engines could ignite like that it's; a mystery. Wait...you don't think the gas tanks might have been partially empty causing a vapor explosion when a few dozen cars collided violently, do you? Nah. You got me. Why?

reply to post by thedman


Interesting story.

So what could cause the dings in the columns going from left to right in the gash of the North Tower?

reply to post by wmd_2008


Cool avatar, eh? Where are those floors anyway...

Well, you can whine all you like, but according to my link, your whine is wrong, Missy.

Is that you using your 30 years of photography experience to tell me all about Wolfgang Staehl, Tina Cart and Robert Clark?

reply to post by thedman


You forgot to mention something...

Admiral Onishi suggested that volunteer pilots will guide their bomb-carrying aircraft all the way to an explosive suicide collision with their American warship targets, acting as a living guidance system, literally becoming "smart bombs".

www.2worldwar2.com...

Were those 757's loaded with bombs?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
: Funny you guys tend to claim the towers fell in their own footprint now you say acres of pulverised concrete well it wasn't all pulverised but there was 110 acres of concrete floor to start with or have you forgot that as well.

Why do you keep getting this so wrong? Maybe because you really don't follow the debate? Or maybe it's done purposely?

The WTC towers did not (DID NOT) fall into their own footprint, they were ejected in a 360d arc, nothing was in the footprint higher than the lobbies. WTC 7 landed in its footprint (DID land in its footprint).

I think you purposely get this confused because you want people to think WTC7 didn't (DID NOT) land in its footprint which it obviously did (DID), and the towers obvioulsy didn't (DID NOT). I'm sure you're not that stupid that you could confuse these...

Not much mass in footprint...



Majority of buildings mass in footprint...



You can not fail to see the difference lol.

Now for the collapses to have happened the way YOU OSers are claiming, and your buddy Bazant, then there HAD to be floors left in the footprint of the towers post collapse (there WASN'T), AND WTC 7 would have to have fell outside its footprint (it DIDN'T).

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Cool avatar, eh? Where are those floors anyway...

Well, you can whine all you like, but according to my link, your whine is wrong, Missy.

Is that you using your 30 years of photography experience to tell me all about Wolfgang Staehl, Tina Cart and Robert Clark?

Look Jim you may stack a4 sheets of paper for a living or even burgers BUT there was NO concrete round the core!!!

If you think you are right Jim post a picture to prove it so lets see one becuase I can post pictures during construction that show NO EVIDENCE OF CONCRETE round the core!!!!

So lets see Jim what you got OH and I will have fries with it!

reply to post by ANOK


Sorry ANOK BUT plenty of truthers claim thats what happened we are talking about the towers.

It would be difficult for them to fall into their own footprint 2 reasons

Its not the controlled demolition you guys like to think and also be the massive size of the buildings

Oh and did YOU help with the clear up dont think so, so you dont now what was in the debris!!!!!

WTC 7 can be dealt with later after all between the fires burning for HOURS damage done by the falling buildings and an unfortunate bad design layout for the steelwork to create an open foyer WTC 7 had lots of problems.

I take it you have seen the Cardington fire test links have you had a look at the data!! DONT THINK YOU HAVE!!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008

Oxford University in 1992 published this on the WTC concrete cores

Modern Skyscrapers such as the World Trade Center, New York, have steel and concrete hull-and-core structures. The central core, a reinforced concrete tower, contains lift shafts, staircases, and vertical ducts. From this core the concrete and steel composite floors span on to a steel perimeter structures: a lightweight aluminum and glass curtain wall encloses the building.

This is a good site with lots of images of the concrete. Some good analysis of the smoke plumes is included. You can see the darker column smoke and dust of the central core going vertical, compared with the lighter dust from the surrounding floors blasting up and out, away from the central dust column.

algoxy.com...

Incidentally, the above link’s author is not a no-planer. You might be able to get some ammunition from him, maybe not you, but possibly your dad. However he doesn’t provide much detail, just calls us all “disinfo agents” spreading impossible information, so you might want to read his stuff.

I have provided clear photographic evidence that what hit the North Tower, causing the left-to right scarring of the columns, could not have been caused by a jet wing. Therefore, it is the official story that is impossible. The damage supports a JASSM missile very well though, and that is far from impossible, in fact besides the photographic evidence, there is witness testimony. Far from impossible and voila; no planes (and no holograms) He then goes on to deride folks calling photographs fraudulent as more disinfo agents, however he doesn’t show how the fraudulent photos aren’t fraudulent, only points fingers and tells folks not to listen to us. Can't be right about everything I guess.

Regardless of my disagreements on some of his position, he has an excellent collection of evidence proving the concrete core.

Here’s a more detailed discussion of the core and the way the light reflects through the towers:

letsrollforums.com...

reply to post by Yankee451


So Yanke451 no pictures of the concrete during construction then thought notI

Will post some shots later during constructin showing NO CONCRETE round cores!!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


You're doing a lot of squawking about the concrete cores not being well, concrete without having anything to back it up...why would you say such a thing without knowing for sure? If you knew, why do you need to answer me later. Why do all of you [snip] always need so much time between posts? Don't you know your position?

I've provided several examples which show there were concrete cores...including one sourced to Oxford in 1992. Are you saying their quote is inaccurate?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

Sorry ANOK BUT plenty of truthers claim thats what happened we are talking about the towers.

No they don't, you are confused. If they do say that then yes they are wrong. But because they are wrong it doesn't mean you are right about the OS.

It would be difficult for them to fall into their own footprint 2 reasons

Its not the controlled demolition you guys like to think and also be the massive size of the buildings

Oh and did YOU help with the clear up dont think so, so you dont now what was in the debris!!!!!

LOL there are plenty of picture before clean up. Sorry but you can not deny the facts.

From NIST themselves...

WTC 7 can be dealt with later after all between the fires burning for HOURS damage done by the falling buildings and an unfortunate bad design layout for the steelwork to create an open foyer WTC 7 had lots of problems.

Nonsense. None of those points can lead to a building falling mostly in its own footprint.

I take it you have seen the Cardington fire test links have you had a look at the data!! DONT THINK YOU HAVE!!!!

What is your point?...

Despite atmosphere temperatures of over 1200°C and temperatures on the unprotected steel beams of 1100°C in the worst case, no structural collapse took place.

www.corusconstruction.com...

Regardless, again for the millionth time, what if steel did get hot enough to fail? It's not going to cause a complete global collapse of the whole building due to NEWTONS laws of motion, that I have to keep repeating because you keep ignoring it, and making a fool of yourself with your caps and exclamation marks.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

You're doing a lot of squawking about the concrete cores not being well, concrete without having anything to back it up...why would you say such a thing without knowing for sure? If you knew, why do you need to answer me later. Why do all of you putzes always need so much time between posts? Don't you know your position?

I've provided several examples which show there were concrete cores...including one sourced to Oxford in 1992. Are you saying their quote is inaccurate?

edit on 19-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

WE are in DIFFERENT time zones mate I also have a life outside of ATS unlike you it seems

Something re your core!

sydney.edu.au...

Details of the drywall system

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/uploads/ats32614_coregyp2.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/uploads/ats32612_coregyp.jpg[/atsimg]

Did you know a lift got stuck beween floors this is what they did.

Two passengers pried open the elevator doors, only to find solid drywall in front of them. so Demczur decided they shouldn't wait for help. Something was very wrong. He and the others kicked the sheetrock wall. What they really needed was something sharp, but no one had a knife. Demczur looked down at his bucket of window-washing tools and reached for his squeegee.

In the lift shaft this is what you would have seen.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/uploads/ats29637_missingSOFP.jpg[/atsimg]

NO CONCRETE CORE and I can show lots of images of the core going up with NO CONCRETE round the steelwork can YOU SHOW 1 image with concrete round the core steelwork!

I can also show various steelwork drawings for floor layout WITH NO MENTION OF CONCRETE!!

Back to you!!!

Oh and at 1400ft I dont think your 3500psi or should I say 24n concrete mix would do the job.

reply to post by ANOK


Facts

Plane hit building
Plane caused damage

Also
Fuel explosion could have caused damage
Fire could have caused damage

We KNOW that an explosion can cause damage WE have experimental results that PROVE fire could have caused damage. Cardington fire tests!!!!!!!!!!!!

We dont KNOW the full extent of the damage YOU DONT EITHER!!!!!!

We KNOW from videos on the net a full collapse can be achieved without explosives SO WHAT CAN WE DEDUCE FROM THIS.

As we know all of the above COULD HAVE CAUSED A COLLAPSE and we or YOU cant PROVE enough damage was done to cause it BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN then all the parts fit. CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT.

You detail step by step like above what you think happened lets see how steps your story has! that are difficult or cant be confirmed!!!!

reply to post by Ben81


And the similarities are?
Betcha the Twin towers wobbled for a while after being struck.
Then there was that whole fire thing.
The comparison is invalid

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

Facts

Plane hit building
Plane caused damage

FACTS, planes only damaged floors in the upper section of the building and NOTHING bellow them. They could not take the resistance away from thousands of tons of steel bellow where they hit.

Also
Fuel explosion could have caused damage
Fire could have caused damage

Also the fire did not damage the building bellow where the fires were. Still thousands of tons of undamaged steel that was working the way it had been designed.

We KNOW that an explosion can cause damage WE have experimental results that PROVE fire could have caused damage. Cardington fire tests!!!!!!!!!!!!

We know that any damage to the building was only on a few floors, and the majority of the building bellow the fire and aircraft damage was still able to remain standing as it was designed to do.

Cardington proved that steel will not fail from fire as they claimed it did on 911.

The Cardington Fire Tests

There are good reasons why fire-ravaged steel buildings typically do not collapse. In a series of fire tests completed in 1996 at the Cardington Lab in the UK the Building Research Establishment (BRE) showed that even unprotected steel frame buildings have large reserves of stability during extreme fire events.[83] In physical tests lasting 2-4 hours–––considerably longer than the fires of 9/11–––lab scientists subjected steel beams, columns and composite steel/concrete floors to fires that at times exceeded 1,000°C. In test after test the unprotected steel beams or columns bowed, buckled and sagged, but not a one of them collapsed

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Why do you keep insisting that the Cardington tests support your claims?

We dont KNOW the full extent of the damage YOU DONT EITHER!!!!!!

Even if the plane completely severed core columns, and the fire completely melted the steel on the few floors it was burning, the building would still not completely collapse.

We KNOW from videos on the net a full collapse can be achieved without explosives SO WHAT CAN WE DEDUCE FROM THIS.

No you don't. You have not seen ANY complete collapse of ANY building like the WTC, or WTC 7. Why do you keep repeating these same arguments to me when I have already shown you it's not true?

As we know all of the above COULD HAVE CAUSED A COLLAPSE and we or YOU cant PROVE enough damage was done to cause it BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN then all the parts fit. CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT.

No it couldn't have been. I already explained to you why according to Newtons laws of motion that a building can not collapse itself from 30 floors falling on 80 floors, it's impossible, unless you admit something took the resistance away first. Do you think you can change my mind on this point with those silly arguments lol?

You detail step by step like above what you think happened lets see how steps your story has! that are difficult or cant be confirmed!!!!

I can only confirm what I think didn't happen, see there is a missing element in this and that is an unknown energy that was acting on the buildings other than gravity, what that was I have no idea. I don't need to know what it was to know that the OS is not telling us what really happened. They didn't even attempt to cover the actual collapse, they made a lot of assumptions, and then made the conclusion fit the the story they wanted the public to believe.
They only tried to explain away the collapse initiation, and then made the moronic statement that complete collapse was inevitable once initiated. How could they make that claim when no steel building has ever fallen from fire? They also ignored known physics. How could they claim complete collapse was inevitable?

They couldn't, and the reason they didn't explain it is because they couldn't without contradicting themselves.

Bazant attempted to pull more wool over your eyes, but he forgets to mention for his hypothesis to have worked, and what you OSers argue, then there had to have been a massive amount of debris in the towers footprint, yet there isn't any. Nothing higher than the lobbies, less than 10% of the towers.

I have explained why using Newtons laws of motion, which is all you need folks.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

Facts

Plane hit building
Plane caused damage

Also
Fuel explosion could have caused damage
Fire could have caused damage

We KNOW that an explosion can cause damage WE have experimental results that PROVE fire could have caused damage. Cardington fire tests!!!!!!!!!!!!

We dont KNOW the full extent of the damage YOU DONT EITHER!!!!!!

We KNOW from videos on the net a full collapse can be achieved without explosives SO WHAT CAN WE DEDUCE FROM THIS.

As we know all of the above COULD HAVE CAUSED A COLLAPSE and we or YOU cant PROVE enough damage was done to cause it BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN then all the parts fit. CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT.

You detail step by step like above what you think happened lets see how steps your story has! that are difficult or cant be confirmed!!!!

We have firsthand accounts of people inside the world trade center before it went down. They gave their accounts saying they heard what sounded like big explosions after the two planes had hit. This was many firemen, business people, and police.