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: 38
34
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Japanese skyscrapers are BUILT to withstand earthquakes.. New York City ones arent. And how does a plane crashing into a building relate to ground tremors? They're completely different trauma put onto the building.

Let me say now that I don't believe in the official story but to try to connect an earthquake to a plane crash is like trying to say, "Wow you fell when i punched you in the face, but when you walked barefoot on ice and didnt slip i mean... PSSHH COME ON NOW. WHAT THE HECK!"

sorry but i see this argument really flawed and don't see how it got onto the front page. really bad argument




posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by tallymebanana
 


The japanese skyscrapers were build to withstand a 9.0 earthquake
but the WTC(both tower) couldnt withstand a plane ? .. TWICE ..

the WTC were build like no other skyscrapers in NYC
you could build with all the steel they have twenty eiffel towers

NO FIRE cant melt those steel bar in minutes
im pretty sure they would also resist a 9.0 earthquake


so the point of this thread is DONT UNDERESTIMATE THE WTC

they were build REALLY STRONG
edit on 4/6/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
The day I load my cheap little outdoor grill full of coals, pour kerosene on, fire 'em up... and my grill melts and collapses from the heat - is the day I'll believe the authorized edition of this story.

.



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Stratus9
 


So is your little grill supporting a 110 story building?



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ben81
reply to post by tallymebanana
 


The japanese skyscrapers were build to withstand a 9.0 earthquake
but the WTC(both tower) couldnt withstand a plane ? .. TWICE ..

the WTC were build like no other skyscrapers in NYC
you could build with all the steel they have twenty eiffel towers

NO FIRE cant melt those steel bar in minutes
im pretty sure they would also resist a 9.0 earthquake


so the point of this thread is DONT UNDERESTIMATE THE WTC

they were build REALLY STRONG
edit on 4/6/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)


and i guess my point is don't underestimate a multi-million dollar skyscraper being built to withstand Ring of Fire earthquakes, and it actually succeeding at that feat. i just see this as comparing apples to oranges. and again, yeah we've all heard the steel bars melting argument.

ever since i woke up years ago i've been trying to decide whether i believe the steel bars melting argument or not. and i'm still undecided because there seems to be ENGINEERS, not lay people, on both sides of the argument. and since i'm no expert, i stay out of that one because i feel like i don't have the education to definitively figure out whether they were brought down by planes or by planted explosives. the fact that those buildings collapsed at free-fall speed are the one thing that make me wonder though; as well as WTC7 falling without even being hit by a plane LOL

oh, and about the amount of steel used to create the WTCs. Uh, who cares? So what if it's the same amount as even 100 Eiffel Towers? Have you ever played a game of Jenga? Or stacked blocks or books really high? The higher you go, the easier it is to topple the tower because of their height. Because the base is the same size as the top, the foundation isn't as strong as in say, a pyramid structure where toppling that would be pretty much impossible; you'd just be knocking stones off the top. It has nothing to do with "how much steel" is being used. The fact that they were the tallest buildings in NYC tells me they're more susceptible to collapse from structural damage than say, a 50-story building.
edit on 7-4-2011 by tallymebanana because: forgot to add something



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tallymebanana
...Because the base is the same size as the top...


Actually this is an incorrect assumption. The towers were bigger at the bottom, the core columns thickness, and weight, tapered as they went up. 18"x36, 4" thick at the base for the bigger columns on the outside of the core, the ones the floors were attached to. The core was also reinforced at floors 98 to 106...


Core columns 501, 508, 703, 803, 904, 1002, 1006, and 1007 from floors 98 to 106 in both towers were reinforced with steel plates.


wtc.nist.gov...

The towers didn't fall over like blocks, they ejected themselves in a 360d arc, no mass was left in the footprints to account for any crushing of floors by other floors.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by tallymebanana
 


Im sure every steel bars can melt .. but in a few minute .. NOTTTTTTTTTTTT
even hollywood wouldnt create such a bad script scene

it take hrs to reach a certain degree in a closed environement

plane fuel that burn even after 12 hrs of burning... it wouldnt melt
only well placed demolition charges can create that effect perfectly
and have the same result twice in seconds .. ask CDI yourself
they will tell you what a controlled demolition looks like
watch the 9/11 video again and you will actually see detonation has the tower fall down
edit on 4/8/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


Nothing had to melt. A skyscraper is designed to distribute the weight. I mean, to make it easy for you, think of the game Jenga or take five dice and place them on top off each other. If you take away the support, eventually, the top will fall. In this case, you have 20 floors of a building that suddenly, after weakening from the fires, could not support what is was designed for and collapsed.

The WTC is not on a fault line and it was designed to withstand a plane that may be lost, going 200mph, to allow for evacuation. Sorry, but it is a miracle that neither of the planes struck with enough force to push one into the other. The amount of dead would have been astounding. That is what was attempted in 93.

Their is no official story, just what happened.

As far as CDI, please explain how they would have done that? Tell us...
edit on 8-4-2011 by esdad71 because: fun



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Ben81
 


Nothing had to melt. A skyscraper is designed to distribute the weight. I mean, to make it easy for you, think of the game Jenga or take five dice and place them on top off each other. If you take away the support, eventually, the top will fall. In this case, you have 20 floors of a building that suddenly, after weakening from the fires, could not support what is was designed for and collapsed.

Their is no official story, just what happened.


Dice and Jinga blocks do not crush each other. They are too strong relative to their weight.

Making a reasonable model involves the Square-cube Law.

www.youtube.com...

It would take energy for the top of the north tower to crush levels below. That consumption of energy would slow the upper block down. It would arrest. There IS just what happened and it could not defy the laws of physics. So why haven't official sources told us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level and how much energy was necessary to crush every level.

Those are the OBVIOUS questions involving what really happens in physics.

psik



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


What's obvious is that you still don't freaking understand that the impact/destruction of the lower tower was not a block-on-block crushdown! The energy can't arrest if it is not encountering enough resistance from the lower floors. What your model ABSOLUTELY FAILS to represent is the space between floors which allows a certain amount of acceleration with gravity. You're so obsessed with the amount of steel and concrete on each floor, yet you can't grasp the basic concept that AIR existed in the towers and that the collapse was NOT UNIFORM. Each floor was not a solid block (or ring in your model). It included a series of connections which had the potential to become severed upon being impacted. By using solid blocks, not only is your model stronger to the nth degree than the trade centers, but it is also extremely silly to assume that every collapsing floor would continue completely straight down.

Checkmate?



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Even if the planes were to hit the bottom of each tower ... IT WOULDNT FALL DOWN
in a perfect vertical way

but if you set charges on each 10 floor
you got a perfect vertical fall

that why you see windows poping out at least 15 floors before the collapsing area

for CDI.. i didnt say it was them lol
but they would know how to recognise a controlled demolition with 100% certitude


edit on 4/8/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ben81
reply to post by esdad71
 


Even if the planes were to hit the bottom of each tower ... IT WOULDNT FALL DOWN
in a perfect vertical way

but if you set charges on each 10 floor
you got a perfect vertical fall

that why you see windows poping out at least 15 floors before the collapsing area

for CDI.. i didnt say it was them lol
but they would know how to recognise a controlled demolition with 100% certitude


edit on 4/8/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)


Except that it wasn't like a spur, not exactly. When the windows busted out and shot out debris, they shot out debris: dust, pieces of things, etc. A simple charge going off would not make that much debris come pouring out before the collapse reached it.

What makes much more sense is if the collapsing debris on the inside of the tower was causing destruction inside before it reached the outer columns (also explaining why a lot of the exterior ejected, most likely pressure from all the debris). Occasionally a window broke on the way down. That's really not suspicious to me.



posted on Apr, 8 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 



that why you see windows poping out at least 15 floors before the collapsing area


As the building twists and torques the forces squeeze the window frames causing the windows to shatter or be popped out of the frame

It is one of the signs FF are taught to look for (along with smoke pushing out of various locations, doors jammed
in frame or wont close, water pouring out of side of building) that building is being unstable and should evacuate

Wont see this in a building being demolished because all the glass along with interior partitions and fixtures
have been removed before



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
I dont care one anyone says .Awesome point.8.9 earthquake vs airplane.Im personally gonna say the 8.9 earthquake packs the bigger punch. S&F . Thanks for the great comparison.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by trey85
I dont care one anyone says .Awesome point.8.9 earthquake vs airplane.Im personally gonna say the 8.9 earthquake packs the bigger punch. S&F . Thanks for the great comparison.


You got starred for saying that buildings in Japan DESIGNED to shake considerably during an earthquake are comparable to a plane damaging a tower on an upper level, and a collapse progressing an hour or more later. The plane didn't destroy the tower, not primarily. It was the instigator of the factors which caused the collapse, yes, but it wasn't the direct cause.

The fact that people think your post is good just shows how unthinking some people are (not directed at you, just the general criticism people are/aren't giving your post. It's not that it's bad, it's just that your post makes no sense.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

So this rubber tire dislodged itself from the airplane immediately after impact/explosion, embedded itself in the external building column, dropped 800 feet to the solid ground below and remained embedded in the column without blowing out or dislodging from the column? I have to admit, this tire gives that magical terrorist's passport a run for its money when it comes to miracles.



Not really, considering that the tires that are used on jets have to be incredibly strong. I mean, the dynamic load that they encounter on landing is astounding. Not to mention that they must do this, sometimes 3-4 times per day. Without failure. Very few failures on landing compared to how many landing occur worldwide every single day.


Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
As for that engine part which miraculously ended up underneath a covered scaffolding, I haven't seen acrobatics like that since the Olympics. Who knows, maybe this engine was in search of some cover so it wouldn't rust in case of rain.


Why does this suprise you? The engine is circular. What do circular things do when they hit the ground? They can roll, tumble, and bounce. Not to mention that the scaffolding is on the sidewalk....



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ben81
The japanese skyscrapers were build to withstand a 9.0 earthquake
but the WTC(both tower) couldnt withstand a plane ? .. TWICE ..


Well, considering it did withstand the impact of the plane, we know that this statement is inaccurate.


Originally posted by Ben81
the WTC were build like no other skyscrapers in NYC you could build with all the steel they have twenty eiffel towers


Point?



Originally posted by Ben81
NO FIRE cant melt those steel bar in minutes. im pretty sure they would also resist a 9.0 earthquake



They didn't, you're right. They didn't need to melt.

Argument from personal incredulity noted.



Originally posted by Ben81
so the point of this thread is DONT UNDERESTIMATE THE WTC
they were build REALLY STRONG
edit on 4/6/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)


Agree with that 100%. They were built very well. Too bad in the 1960's, we couldn't model the effect of fires in steel framed structures like we can now.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratus9
The day I load my cheap little outdoor grill full of coals, pour kerosene on, fire 'em up... and my grill melts and collapses from the heat - is the day I'll believe the authorized edition of this story.


They day your grill is built out of A36 steel, has massive damage inflicted on it, and survives the ensuing fire that has already damaged the protective coating that is applied to your grill, you let me know.



posted on Apr, 9 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
no mass was left in the footprints to account for any crushing of floors by other floors.


What was in the basement then? Nothing? Not a single piece went into the basement?

Hummm......You've ignored this before. Will you do it again?



posted on Apr, 10 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


So... you beleive the official version to be accurate ??

100 % accurate ????




top topics



 
34
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join