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: 26
34
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


No front end of plane engine landging gear area and were wing attach to aircraft is strongest area this weakend the wall panels and if you look damage to walls is less further from centre line.

A little physics lesson for you. From the Science for kidssite just right for you.

Whats harder glass toughened for space flight or a fleck of paint!



It all depends on speed!!!!!

Another example of K E in action that YOU wont understand!
edit on 21-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


So this fast jet struck the building with all this KE that made the wings into these deadly knives, slicing the steel in a 35 degree wedge from the fuselage, out.

Other than the damage evidence, you might have had something there (except of course, wings don't do that in the real world).

Aren't you some sort of photography, structural engineer, construction expert? Shouldn't you be looking at the evidence instead of throwing a fit?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


So this fast jet struck the building with all this KE that made the wings into these deadly knives, slicing the steel in a 35 degree wedge from the fuselage, out.

Other than the damage evidence, you might have had something there (except of course, wings don't do that in the real world).

Aren't you some sort of photography, structural engineer, construction expert? Shouldn't you be looking at the evidence instead of throwing a fit?



Suggest you read this then stfu about no planes!!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What about Tina, Wolfgang and Robert so whats the problem!


PS TONS OF EVIDENCE IT WAS ON TEEVEE and it wasn't a YELLOW LINE!!!!!
edit on 21-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Does someone need a time-out?

Why don't you want to discuss the direction of the damage pray tell.

If you can't use the backspace button to read the multiple references I've made about those photographer's work, you'll need to figure out yourself why I bring them up.
edit on 21-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
Does someone need a time-out?

Why don't you want to discuss the direction of the damage pray tell.

If you can't use the backspace button to read the multiple references I've made about those photographer's work, you'll need to figure out yourself why I bring them up.
edit on 21-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



What the one you suggest thats a missle
so come on you keep brining up Tina etc so whats the problem! with Tina etc you want me to talk about it so what do you want me to talk about!
edit on 21-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Then let's not talk about anything but how the plane wing could possibly cause that damage.

Why is it such a struggle to get someone to discuss that? Are you trying to avoid the question?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I can see the wing shredding, but it is still a good deal of mass striking another mass. It won't disintegrate in the real world. That may happen in your brain, but not in real life.

Also, the plane didn't slow down enough from the initial impact to cause a noticeable difference in kinetic energy on the wing tips. The only major difference would be the thickness of the wings at the tips and where they would impart their force.

Also, your picture assumes that the plane is hitting the building perfectly horizontal and perfectly perpendicular to the tower wall. That is almost impossible to be true.
edit on 21-3-2011 by Varemia because: Made my last sentence make sense


Edit: On a side note, Yankee 451, please stop the name-calling. It's not necessary and is meant to incite an emotional response rather than a well thought out response. I insist that you think through your posts more carefully before you get caught up in breaking the terms of service.
edit on 21-3-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I can see the wing shredding, but it is still a good deal of mass striking another mass. It won't disintegrate in the real world. That may happen in your brain, but not in real life.

Also, the plane didn't slow down enough from the initial impact to cause a noticeable difference in kinetic energy on the wing tips. The only major difference would be the thickness of the wings at the tips and where they would impart their force.

Also, your picture assumes that the plane is hitting the building perfectly horizontal and perfectly perpendicular to the tower wall. That is almost impossible to be true.
edit on 21-3-2011 by Varemia because: Made my last sentence make sense


You type with such conviction! Why must you pretend I'm imagining this stuff? The evidence is right before your eyes.

How can YOU claim the plane didn't slow down. Don't Newton's laws prove an IMMEDIATE equal and opposite reaction? If you're still using the video as evidence, I submit that this is an example of the depth of the brainwashing. You believe the TV in spite of it being impossible.

Have you looked at the impact reports from the vaunted NIST reports?

thewebfairy.com...







Edit...you mean stop referring to the guy as a spoiled child? Fine. Note how my tone improved when he stopped calling me "Jim" and actually tried to discuss the issues. Why did you refer to reality only being in my brain?
edit on 21-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


The reason I called you Jim was the simple fact another thing you have in common with him is when someone post some information or links that show YOU are wrong in common with he who shall not be named
you dont reply
strange dont you think?

Then you come back with the imature response if I think its worthy of a reply at least the other posters Anok etc come back with something you tend to deflect or change subject again another thing you have in common with he who shall not be named.

I asked him the question of how a little fleck of paint could damage the Shuttle window he would not give an answer he like you claims that the aircraft could not go through the steel just showing like you a total lack of understanding of the process and energy involved. He wouldn't answer the question because it would show he was wrong!!!

So come on give me a link to the Tina etc stuff and we can discuss that Yankee451.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Don't suppose you could name the NIST engineers who went up to the impact zone and examined the damage? Or any other engineer?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 





The reason I called you Jim was the simple fact another thing you have in common with him is when someone post some information or links that show YOU are wrong in common with he who shall not be named you dont reply strange dont you think?


This is hardly "the simple fact". When I'm addressed with respect, I return it in kind. You initiated the conversation with ridicule and without any serious attempt to address the issues.

When I'm wrong, I admit it:




And here's my apology. Weedwhacker, Firepilot, Aloysius, SoylentGreen, Stars15 and everyone else who I abused with my belligerence showed remarkable restraint in their dealings with me. I was a boorish, childish, hypocritical heel. Thank you for your patience and for the lessons in contrail science, not to mention social grace. Please accept my sincere apology for my behavior. I also apologize to any laypeople out there...don't do as I do; check your facts before making an a@@ out of yourself. Yankee451


www.abovetopsecret.com...




I asked him the question of how a little fleck of paint could damage the Shuttle window he would not give an answer he like you claims that the aircraft could not go through the steel just showing like you a total lack of understanding of the process and energy involved. He wouldn't answer the question because it would show he was wrong!!!


He wouldn't answer the question because the answer was irrelevant. I've shown evidence, and you showed Kung Fu videos. Why would I answer you?




So come on give me a link to the Tina etc stuff and we can discuss that Yankee451.


There are several links. I am reluctant to continue conversing with you because I don't believe you are genuinely interested in conversation and are more interested in disruption. If you would like to prove otherwise, please do. I welcome real discussion.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Don't suppose you could name the NIST engineers who went up to the impact zone and examined the damage? Or any other engineer?


Well that's a fair question, isn't it? Can you name the engineers that did the same for all the other explanations the NIST, MIT and Bazant, et al used for the rest of their claims?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Yankee451
 



Don't suppose you could name the NIST engineers who went up to the impact zone and examined the damage? Or any other engineer?


Well that's a fair question, isn't it? Can you name the engineers that did the same for all the other explanations the NIST, MIT and Bazant, et al used for the rest of their claims?



No, I cannot. However, I am not the one that is trying to prove some sort of cockamamie conspiracy by comparing the Naudet video to the NIST report. I've always known that the best that NIST would be able to do is make an educated guess.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
[

No, I cannot. However, I am not the one that is trying to prove some sort of cockamamie conspiracy by comparing the Naudet video to the NIST report. I've always known that the best that NIST would be able to do is make an educated guess.


See? That's what I mean.

How the @#$@ is noticing the NIST report is missing pretty big details like a big explosion, and the direction of the damage to the columns a "cockamamie conspiracy"?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

It all depends on speed!!!!!


No it doesn't, and exclamation marks doesn't make it so. No matter what the speed of colliding objects the reaction is always, EQUAL AND OPPOSITE, every time. Equal and opposite forces. The force on one object is the SAME as the force on the other, no matter the speed of either object. The MASS of the objects is what determines what happens, the large mass will receive the least damage as it will not be slowed as fast as the object with less mass.
The KE of the objects is equal on impact. KE is the energy an object has due to its movement, once it hits something the KE is changed into other energy, both objects push back against each other with the same force.

Unless you learn to understand basic Newton physics you will never understand this.


Another example of K E in action that YOU wont understand!


Speed increases mass, that is the increase that makes the difference, in this context, not the KE.
If an object is moving fast enough then it's mass will be increased. If an object stops it has no KE. KE is relative to an objects motion, it is not an extra force giving the moving object incredible powers lol.

KE is not the only component involved here, you keep ignoring the main issue and that is MASS. As far as falling floors in a building we are talking about objects of more or less equal mass colliding, a simple Newton physics problem. The floors did not fall far enough to increase their mass or KE enough to be significant.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Well well I post links that cuase you a problem so YOU refuse to talk
what will people think then Yankee451

You see you think no planes were involved have you asked the others on the thread say ANOK ?

I have provide links and when I need to repeat them I do so, you ignore info that flys in the face of your claims also like a lot of truthers you only look at one item in isolation and not combined.

I have shown evidence of no concrete core and can provide pictures to show it ,you backed down on that.

I have shown some of the building fires you refered to were for CONCRETE buildings not steelframe.

I have given links to show fires can reach temps in an office fire a lot higher and quicker than you claimed.

So whats the problem Yankee451.

Oh almost forgot your superduper graphics technology to draw a line on a tv screen one of the best yet
how in your wildest dreams could you even think that was worth a shot!
edit on 21-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: lines added



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Trying to keep it insimple term so Yankee451 might understand! So I will ask you Anok is Yankee451 right could or couldn't the planes penetrate the walls you and me dont agree about the collapse but what about the planes!

So are you like Jim Fetzer and Yankee451 a no plane believer!



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Varemia states:
"Jet fuel is a liquid, and the gas of it is what combusts. Liquid likes to travel. There were elevator shafts, one that went the full length of the tower. Liquid goes down, blows out various floors with the combustion, and eventually hits the basement after a couple seconds. (given free-fall and not knowing the position of the elevators, it probably took around 7 seconds to completely finish exploding inside the tower.)"

-- Kid, you never cease to amaze me. You have been repeatedly made to look a fool for believing such utter garbage and yet you bounce back like one of those inflatable punching bags with the sand weight at the bottom. At times on this thread you almost showed a shred of intelligence and so I took it easy on you, however after the above comment I actually wish you were a web bot. It would make your logic so much easier to swallow.
I will give you a chance to clear up any misunderstandings I have about what you are stating though...
are you claiming that some liquid jet fuel did not ignite on impact but rather "outran" the raging fireball behind it and continued "pouring" down those elevator shafts all the way to the bottom? You do understand that those impact zones were rather high and even the gang at NIST wouldn't try to claim there was enough fuel in those planes to accomplish what you described.

Is this a claim all believers in the OS would stand by?

Is there a computer model somewhere I can see of this? Then it would have to be true.

United you stand...demented you fall.

Varemia states:
"It's really not hard to imagine that some booms were heard when you remember what was inside the planes."

-- I think I remember what was in those planes...people? That explains it.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by TheIsraelite777
 


Jet fuel exploded... look at any gas explosion on youtube. It's loud. The WTC explosions were caught on tape as loud after the planes hit.

Jet fuel is a liquid, and the gas of it is what combusts. Liquid likes to travel. There were elevator shafts, one that went the full length of the tower. Liquid goes down, blows out various floors with the combustion, and eventually hits the basement after a couple seconds. (given free-fall and not knowing the position of the elevators, it probably took around 7 seconds to completely finish exploding inside the tower.)

It's really not hard to imagine that some booms were heard when you remember what was inside the planes.
edit on 20-3-2011 by Varemia because: added parenthesis


Well, only they said the explosions came from under them... so I'm sorry you can't debunk the eyewitnesses. That's the most important evidence. They were in the building at the time of the attack. They said they felt and heard explosions and it felt like it had came from underneath where they were standing. There is a video on youtube that actually caught the sound of the unknown explosions. I'd have to find it.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 
Also
Fuel explosion could have caused damage
Fire could have caused damage


I think the air fuel explosion would do almost nothing to structural steel besides raise the surface temperature temporarily. The force would not be sufficiently concentrated to bend steel strong enough to support another 29 stories of the south tower. It would blow people and furniture around and set things on fire but fuel and vapor diffused through the air would be relatively weak against one inch thick steel.

And if the steel is that strong how could the fire have weakened it in LESS THAN ONE HOUR?

So why doesn't EVERYBODY want to know the tons of steel that were on every level of the towers?

Why are we arguing year after year and not demanding information that simple? Is it that the people that have chosen to believe the Official Conspiracy Theory don't want to know? And all of the EXPERTS would look silly asking after NINE YEARS of not mentioning it?

I don't see it discussed on the AE911Truth website. Whose side are they on?

psik


Don't argue with this guy. He is a disinformation agent probably.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join