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: 29
34
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Game_Over
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Exactly. You saw the fireball.

You can see how tall the buildings are and what floor each of the jets hit.

Are you suggesting that there was enough liquid fuel left over after the fireball that went down the elevator shafts?



Chew on this game -over


British-born survivor Paul Neal tells how he smelt jet fuel rushing through the lift shafts close to his desk. "I recognised it because I'm a private pilot. I recall smelling it and instantly dismissed it as being illogical because it didn't have any place in the World Trade Center."



May be YOU have seen to many Hollywood explosions

edit on 24-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: line added


That doesn't mean anything, that's one man's opinion. Show me another eyewitness report. Go ahead, show me.




posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Game_Over
wmd_2008 states:
"Well the typical truther see's something and JUMPS to his own conclusion I didn't post a link to where I got the text did I!
-- No, you didn't post a link. How am I supposed to guess where you got your info from or if you copied it as written if you don't tell us where you got it from?

wmd_2008 states:
"See the problem is journalists/media want to make their story seem better a bit like conspiracy theorists when the true story is just not exciting enough."
-- Are you implying that 9-11 was not exciting enough as it was? I could easily use the example of Todd B. and the "Let's Roll" fantasy to illustrate this.

Secondly I am not apologizing to you for sloppily copying text from a BBC article about a show originally aired on PBS and edited.

Now, care to address the other factors in my previous post where you were rightfully schooled?

-- So, let me get this straight, he smelt it rushing?
His sense of smell is so refined that he could interpret quantity and speed of the the fuel? Can he also smell how fast a car is going?

Why is it hard for you to grasp that he smelled Jet Fuel? I am not denying the fact that jet fuel was present. Nor am I denying that the fumes from the explosion would have traveled down the elevator shafts.

Smelling Jet fuel vapors and liquid jet fuel "rushing through the lift shafts" are two different things, aren't they?


Lol right on.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheIsraelite777
 


In other words:
"I want an eyewitness to this."
"Here you go."
"An eyewitness? I don't think it's real. Provide me with another!"
"What the heck?"

Honestly, you CAN'T discount anything that disagrees with you just because it disagrees.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Varemia,

I am guessing that he was using sarcasm to illustrate how a typical truster would react.



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Game_Over
Varemia,

I am guessing that he was using sarcasm to illustrate how a typical truster would react.


Well, with both sides bouncing around like this, I don't know how we're going to solve anything. Apparently there are witnesses for both sides of the event, and since as far as I know there has been no refutation of the credibility of the witnesses, that means that one or the other was mistaken, and it is not up to us to decide which. No picking and choosing when it comes to witnesses. Instead, we should look at other things, I guess. What to look at, I don't know, since none of us are professional engineers or physics experts. Our laymen opinions have no bearing on what would happen in reality.

I mean, just look at Mythbusters. Those guys are basically experts and they are never certain of anything until they run extensive tests (and even then, they often get the wrong conclusions based on ignorance of various factors that would change their results)



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Varemia,

Please examine the damage:




My request is simple, if you cannot explain how a jet caused the damage, please admit you should reconsider your belief that one did.

edit on 24-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Ok, here's my best shot as a person who is not an expert:



Snagged from this video:



Still not sure why those ghost plane videos are the only place I can seem to find this angle.



So, yeah. You can see that the plane hit at a left-to-right angle, possibly tilted downward, meaning that the damage makes sense.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIsraelite777

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Game_Over
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Exactly. You saw the fireball.

You can see how tall the buildings are and what floor each of the jets hit.

Are you suggesting that there was enough liquid fuel left over after the fireball that went down the elevator shafts?



Chew on this game -over


British-born survivor Paul Neal tells how he smelt jet fuel rushing through the lift shafts close to his desk. "I recognised it because I'm a private pilot. I recall smelling it and instantly dismissed it as being illogical because it didn't have any place in the World Trade Center."



May be YOU have seen to many Hollywood explosions

edit on 24-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: line added


That doesn't mean anything, that's one man's opinion. Show me another eyewitness report. Go ahead, show me.


It does mean something HE was in the buildING were YOU... NO!



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Game_Over
wmd_2008 states:
"Well the typical truther see's something and JUMPS to his own conclusion I didn't post a link to where I got the text did I!
-- No, you didn't post a link. How am I supposed to guess where you got your info from or if you copied it as written if you don't tell us where you got it from?

wmd_2008 states:
"See the problem is journalists/media want to make their story seem better a bit like conspiracy theorists when the true story is just not exciting enough."
-- Are you implying that 9-11 was not exciting enough as it was? I could easily use the example of Todd B. and the "Let's Roll" fantasy to illustrate this.

Secondly I am not apologizing to you for sloppily copying text from a BBC article about a show originally aired on PBS and edited.

Now, care to address the other factors in my previous post where you were rightfully schooled?

-- So, let me get this straight, he smelt it rushing?
His sense of smell is so refined that he could interpret quantity and speed of the the fuel? Can he also smell how fast a car is going?

Why is it hard for you to grasp that he smelled Jet Fuel? I am not denying the fact that jet fuel was present. Nor am I denying that the fumes from the explosion would have traveled down the elevator shafts.

Smelling Jet fuel vapors and liquid jet fuel "rushing through the lift shafts" are two different things, aren't they?


The "he smelt it rushing" could have been the journalist rather than him or does that just not occur to you.
Thats WHY I said the comment about making there story more interesting, you see that all the time in newspapers a story could happen today and if two papers report it tomorrow they wont agree 100%, I mean newspapers are even printing pictures flipped left to right so there picture is different from others.

Would he have smelt vapour unless liquid fuel was falling down the shaft? after all its the vapour that ignites and burns!.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Some reading for you Yankee451

www.journalof911studies.com...

and here

web.mit.edu...

The no planes theory is well past its use by date!



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Varemia
 


Varemia,

Please examine the damage:




My request is simple, if you cannot explain how a jet caused the damage, please admit you should reconsider your belief that one did.

edit on 24-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)


Any video evidence for your missle ?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIsraelite777
Agreed, it's impossible for any jet fuel to leak without blowing up with the rest of it. It's IMPOSSIBLE.


Incorrect.

Jet fuel has an ignition point of ~140 deg. F, depending on the specific blend. . Compared to gasoline, which has a flashpoint of -45 deg. F, which makes it incredibly flameable, versys Jet fuel which is not.

What this means is if jet fuel is not exposed to direct flame, it most likely will not ignite. However, gasoline takes just a very small spark. Hence, why gasoline engines have relitively small spark plugs compared to very heavy machinery like bulldozers that use diesel.

In fact, there are only a handfull of fuels that flash at a temperature lower than gasoline. Butane, Pentane, propane etc. This makes them extremely flameable.

So, I could take a can of gasoline, and set it 5' from a fire, and the fumes would combust. I could take a can of kerosene, and set it at the same distance, and it would remain unchanged. Once that kerosene began to heat up and fume, then it would be able to combust.

See here.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I don't know what you don't understand here.

You are claiming the damage was caused by a plane.

This is your chance to explain how this was done based on the evidence.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Why don't you give us your eyewitness account of how the Jet fuel made it to the basement.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Why don't you give us your eyewitness account of how the Jet fuel made it to the basement.



Well, considering I wasn't in the basement, and I don't have x-ray vision, I wouldn't be able to tell you how from an eyewitness viewpoint.

Good try though.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


This is your chance to bring some evidence to the table to support your position.

Yours truly has already commented on the MIT paper here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Yankee451

It is the report you gave me...therefore to me it is your report, but I don't blame you for not wanting to take credit for it.

No, they did not calculate it, they created a model to explain it.


The “post-September 11th” structural engineer, while feeling the remorse and confusion that every other American has dealt with, is also privileged with the immense education an analysis of the WTC collapse can provide.


Why are they mentioning remorse in a scientific paper? I am angry about 911, not remorseful…who is remorseful? NORAD? Are they trying to appeal to our emotions or our logic?


As the fuselage and wings cut through the steel facade of the Towers, the affected portions of the column sheared off.


Where do they get this premise? Why would anyone suspect the wings could shear steel columns and not the reverse ? They seem to place a lot of importance on momentum, but don’t consider the density of materials, why?

Is the image in Figure 2 the same image published by Wolfgang Staehl, Tina Cart and Robert Clark? How can all three have captured the same perspective and if so, why would they use a fraudulent photo?


The exact position of the longitudinal axis of symmetry of the plane with respect to a floor is unknown.


The above text is directly below Figure 5 which is a close up of the damage. Why didn’t they try to at least get close to the real impact point based on the measurements available from the photo directly above? Were they afraid if they were more exact they’d find that the fuselage impacted directly with a floor, and not between floors?


At the same time, the 3m diameter engines and the wings could easily fit between office floors. This will be most probably the case with the North Tower impact, which occurred with less roll angle.


Why will this be most probably the case with the North Tower? Would it throw their model off if the engines connected with a floor behind an exterior wall? Did they see the video of the impact? It is very hard to tell what it is that hit the tower, much less the roll angle. How do they know there was less roll angle? Based on the slice marks? If they can tell roll angle why can’t they tell the exact impact point by measuring the hole and the position on the wall?


Upon impact into high-rise buildings, the situation is different. The framework of beams, columns, and trusses could deform plastically and fracture.


If they “could” deform plastically and fracture, that means they also may not plastically fracture. Are they trying to build a model to suit a fixed result?


Because the contact area is small, these members, which are relatively narrow compared to the fuselage diameter, can cut and slice into main elements of the airframe before being broken themselves. Thus there is a complex iterative failure sequence between the two “opponents”, building and airplane, that are of comparable strength.


The building beams, columns and spandrels can slice and dice the jet, presumably before being broken themselves. By what? The jet it’s slicing and dicing? Why do they state a jet’s strength is comparable to the building’s strength? Momentum? Is that a fair comparison? Wouldn’t they need to compare a jet’s engine to an external column backed by a spandrel plate, backed by a concrete floor, backed by tubular floor joists, backed by the central column or the opposite wall? With kinetic energy being equally shared, why would the whole plane enter the building instead of just the more massive parts entering the building while less massive parts bounced off? Can momentum explain this all the way down to the tail section?


The main structural part of the wing is the spar – a continuous beam that extends from one tip of the wing to the other. For modeling purposes, we assumed that the mass of the wings (excluding engine) was approximately 21300kg wing M . This mass does not include the mass of the fuel in the wing tanks. Assuming that this mass is now uniformly distributed over the whole wing span and the wing is modeled as a thin-walled square section cross section ...the equivalent thickness becomes 34.5mm.


So the wing mass, most of which is between the engine and the fuselage has now been equally distributed to the whole wing. All of the material used for support is now used to create a 34.5 mm thick wing-shaped box of aluminum for the sake of their model. Is this an accurate and fair representation to begin this test with?


The wings are swept at approximately 35o so that upon impact, external columns are contacted sequentially, one by one. However, the problem of a hollow beam striking another hollow column at a right angle and a speed of 240 m/s has not been analyzed in the literature. Therefore it is not possible, at this point in time, to give any detailed account on this interaction, between the wings and outer column, with a higher degree of accuracy than our approximate engineering analysis.


Even with making a wing into an aluminum machete, they don’t quite have enough modeling power to give a detailed account on this interaction? Why do they talk about their aluminum machete wing striking the columns at right angles? Wouldn’t a swept wing contact the corner of the column first, and isn’t the corner of the column the sturdiest part? With the wing striking the corner like that, would not the corner act like a more massive knife than even the massive machete-wing? Is this why they chose not to press this argument, settling instead with their lame approximated "engineering analysis"?


The equivalent thickness of the hollow wing beam is approximately four times larger than the thickness of the exterior columns, 9.5mm ext t . It is therefore reasonable to treat wings as rigid bodies upon impact with exterior columns.


They made a wing four times the thickness of the beam of a skyscraper...how is this reasonable?


In actuality the wings are constructed as a 3-dimensional lattice of open section beams, ribs and sheet metal skin that maybe of comparable strength to the floor trusses. However, interaction between two 3-dimensional space frames impacting each other is too difficult to carry out analytically at the present level of approximation.


First they make a machete-wing, and then they want it to be a 3 dimensional lattice work as strong as the floor trusses. How many trusses are they using for this estimate? It’s too difficult to carry out analytically at the present level of approximation? Is that a fancy way of admitting they’re talking out their bung holes?

Let me know if we need to continue.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   


You can see that the plane hit at a left-to-right angle, possibly tilted downward, meaning that the damage makes sense.


The damage "makes sense"? How does that prove that commercial airliners struck those buildings? Before we get to the damage, how about we analyze the occurrence.

You see, in the insurance industry, to determine if coverage is provided for a loss, you analyze the occurrence first and the damage later. In other words, the occurrence is a lot more important than the damage, which can be manipulated by "other forces", as it was on 9/11.

The official occurrence evidence shows us that a cartoon like airplane penetrated a steel tower (like a hot knife through butter) without slowing down one bit and without aircraft parts rebounding back. After the presentation of such piss poor evidence for the event, no need to examine the damage to figure out this story is a complete joke.

ATS is pushing the mainstream commercial airliner version to propagate and support the Official Fairy Tale. Maybe ATS should go one step further and start labeling members' individual posts as hoaxes. Thank you ATS. What would we ever do without your delusional agenda driven beliefs about what is a hoax and what isn't a hoax?

edit on 25-3-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-3-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


Actually, if you watch the slow motion footage, you can clearly see the main body of the plane move faster than the engines, which impacted harder. (this statement may be inaccurate. I would like to see others confirm it)

Watch the footage again, really carefully this time. I promise you that the left wing hits first. That means UNDENIABLY that the plane came in at an angle toward the right.
edit on 25-3-2011 by Varemia because: added parenthesis



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Got any non-tampered with footage of the plane?

Any evidence at all?

How can a plane striking almost dead center cause that damage?






posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Well, considering I wasn't in the basement, and I don't have x-ray vision, I wouldn't be able to tell you how from an eyewitness viewpoint.

Good try though.


So you admit that this is just a hypothesis with nothing to support the idea?

You expect solid proof of anything a 'truther' says, yet you will support something that has no proof whatsoever just because you think it's a way to argue away explosives. Whoever first thought of fuel flowing down elevator shafts, and exploding in basements, didn't really think it through too well, but no matter plenty of idiots believed it anyway.

BTW this pic compare the size of the towers to the amount of jet fuel in the buildings after impact, according to NIST...(the fuel is too the right)



Yes it was a 'good try', it proved your claims are nonsense and you have nothing to support them.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join