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.

 

Gravity Can't Do This!

page: 23
27
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by GenRadek
 



But notice, with explosives, its just a puff, and thats it. Its not a constant stream of air blowing out with more and more speed.
Yeah that along with the non-symmetrical position of the jets lead me to believe they're not a part of a controlled demolition.


Also notice, that in order for them to be anything explosive, well consider where exactly they would be located in order to produce such a "spurt". How can an explosive create a jet of air that stays in jet form, if its deep inside the WTC building. It would have blown out a whole row of windows.

I was too thinking that it looked suspicious long long long time ago, but after further review and study, those "squibs" are nothing more than just jets of pressurized air directly from the collapse.




posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
I was too thinking that it looked suspicious long long long time ago, but after further review and study, those "squibs" are nothing more than just jets of pressurized air directly from the collapse.


Do you notice something about this picture of the collapse?...



That is air escaping. Air will take the path of least resistance, it will not go down, and through doors, and elevator shafts looking for a window to pop out of. For pressure build up you need an air tight space. The air pressure would simply blow out the sides along with the floors and the outer mesh you see being ejected, not go down past other floors. Clap your hands together, where does the air go? Through your hands, or out the sides where the path of least resistance is?

Also we know that floors were not staying as solid slabs when they impacted, they were being crushed and ejected, evidenced by the lack of floors in the footprint post collapse.

It's time you dropped this nonsense because it just proves you know nothing about physics. Damn, you don't even have to know physics to know you're wrong, just common sense.


edit on 8/3/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



That is air escaping. Air will take the path of least resistance, it will not go down, and through doors, and elevator shafts looking for a window to pop out of. For pressure build up you need an air tight space. The air pressure would simply blow out the sides along with the floors and the outer mesh you see being ejected, not go down past other floors. Clap your hands together, where does the air go? Through your hands, or out the sides where the path of least resistance is?


Really? Air takes paths? Do you think the air that was being moved from the upper levels tried to cut a path through the air on the lower levels? Pressurize a system and it will find the weakest point in the envelope.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Really? Air takes paths? Do you think the air that was being moved from the upper levels tried to cut a path through the air on the lower levels? Pressurize a system and it will find the weakest point in the envelope.


No that is not how it works. Take a bag and fill it with air then make a small hole, the air will force out of the hole (your window), now open the bag (the huge hole made by the building collapsing and the 'weakest point in the envelope'), does the air still try to force itself out of the little hole you made?

The air had plenty of open area in order to equalize the pressure, so there would have been no pressure build up in the first place. Clap your hands and the air escapes out of the sides, it does not force itself to go anywhere but the path of least resistance.

Actually if you are right it should be easy to demonstrate your claim, one way would be to show a vid of another collapsing building showing the same action. There have been plenty of pancake collapses to pick from I would imagine.

Really? Yes really hooper. You have obviously convinced yourself that's how it works, but it ain't based on reality mate, just someone trying to make excuses and being parroted by someone who doesn't know any better.


edit on 8/3/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


That is air escaping. Air will take the path of least resistance, it will not go down, and through doors, and elevator shafts looking for a window to pop out of. For pressure build up you need an air tight space. The air pressure would simply blow out the sides along with the floors and the outer mesh you see being ejected, not go down past other floors. Clap your hands together, where does the air go? Through your hands, or out the sides where the path of least resistance is?



Really? I see dust and debris falling over. I dont doubt for a second that air is escaping in that picture. However, the initial picture of concern was the jets of air coming out of the mechanical rooms. The gif shows how the air is being forced out at a rate that is increasing in velocity. That is not how an explosive works. ANOK, maybe you can show me an explosive, that after detonation, its velocity increases over time, 1-2-3 seconds after the "Kaboom." I have yet to see an explosive explode, and then have the pressure wave increase in speed ever farther from detonation point. An explosive explodes with an initial high (almost instant) velocity, that immediately begins to slow down. Even a nuclear device when detonated, has concentric rings of damage, where the blast is more damaging close to ground zero, than 5, 10, 15, 20 miles away. The blast dissipates and slows down.

Where is the air inside the ventilation shafts suppose to go, when it is having more air pushed into the system from floors collapsing above it? It acted like a syringe.



Also we know that floors were not staying as solid slabs when they impacted, they were being crushed and ejected, evidenced by the lack of floors in the footprint post collapse.

It's time you dropped this nonsense because it just proves you know nothing about physics. Damn, you don't even have to know physics to know you're wrong, just common sense.


edit on 8/3/2011 by ANOK because: typo


Oh really? Then why did a few workers and clean up crews cutting in and digging into the WTC footprint areas discover anywhere from 10-14 to even 20 floors squashed together a fraction of the original size? Did you miss the accounts and even the video of one stating how when they cut into one area, they found 14 floors compressed into 8 ft?


"For it being two hundred and ten story buildings, the pile wasn't an enormous pile. We were expecting it to be - I think a lot of the guys were expecting it to be a lot more. I cut away a section of the wall - my gang cut into a section of the wall and we - we counted 14 floors compressed into 8 feet."

Well, its obvious that the floors themselves (ie trusses, concrete slabs, steel decking) would experience some damage on their descent into the chaos of the collapse, however, the floors themselves fell on to the ones below them. That is the nature of the event. I'm sure they experience some serious torquing, twisting, snapping, folding, hell lots of crushing. But over all, they landed more or less on top of each other.

You drop one slab onto another one, it lands on top of it. It does not explode and fly off sideways. It does not bounce and fall up. It does not do a somersault into a swan dive and flips off the slab below. It lands right on top of it: THUD. I dont know why you are trying to twist reality into something that makes no sense whatsoever. If this is how you wish to perpetuate the fairy tale of controlled demolitions, that is your prerogative. However, I do find troubling is your willingness to twist reality, physics, and facts, and even intentionally misquote and misinterpret facts.

But hey, maybe you can show us workmen quotes, firefighters, ground zero personnel onsite that cleaned up the mess, and see how many of them discovered floor truss remains, floor slab remains, steel decking remains thrown outside the footprint of the WTC. Or even a picture. One picture ANOK. Or a quote. I can continue and give a few more quotes from workers that discovered pancaked floors, stacked and squished inside the footprint of the WTC. Are they all lying ANOK?


Two weeks after 9/11, engineers Pablo Lopez and Andrew Pontecorvo are walking in the B2 basement level at the ruins of the World Trade Center, towards where the North Tower stood. They discover a “solid, rocklike mass where the basement levels of the tower had been,” and see “the recognizable traces of twenty floors, very much like geologic strata revealed by a road cut, compressed into a ten-foot vertical span. In one place, the steel decks of half a dozen floors protruded like tattered wallpaper, so close together that they were almost touching where they were bent downward at the edge. Nothing between the decks was recognizable except as a rocky, rusty mishmash. In a few places what might have been carbonized, compressed stacks of paper stuck out edgewise like graphite deposits.” As New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton describe, Lopez and Pontecorvo have found “where the vanished floors [of the tower] had gone. They had not just fallen straight down. The forces had been so great and the floors so light that they had simply folded up like deflated balloons.”
www.historycommons.org...

At some later time, ironworker Danny Doyle, who is also working at Ground Zero, finds that floors of the South Tower have been compressed into a formation like what happened with the North Tower’s. He discovers “a distinct mound of debris set into the pile, about six feet high, with strands of wire and pieces of rebar sticking out. It looked like layers of sediment that had turned into rock and been lifted up on some mountainside.… Here were ten stories of the South Tower, compacted into an area of about six feet.”


Sorry ANOK, but stop acting like that donkey in the Family Guy clip about Kevin Bacon not being in Footloose. Just as stubborn, and just as misinformed. Were there floors stacked and compressed on top of each other in the footprints of the WTC? YES. Is this evidence of floors that pancaked onto each other during collapse? YES. Is this proof that floors fell onto each other during collapse? YES. Sorry ANOK, but you lose. If floors did not pancake at all, then explain how and why did workers discover stacked floors, all compressed in the footprints of the WTC? How can one find 20 floors compressed into 10 feet, if they were allegedly pulverized, steel trusses, decking and all, and ejected in powder form outside the footprint (or the walls) of the WTC Towers? How did they manage to powderize the steel trusses, the steel decking the concrete slabs were on, and have them ejected outside the footprint? You came up with this BS, let's see some comprehensive thought processes behind it.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Really? I see dust and debris falling over.


Look, I'm not about to get into a long debate over a stupid claim.

If the sides of the building are falling away, then it is opening the floors to open air. If there is dust pouring out of the building as it collapses that is air escaping.

The air has no reason to search a more indirect path. It would not choose one window to escape from.

Give it up, no one is buying this crap.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
Really? I see dust and debris falling over.


Look, I'm not about to get into a long debate over a stupid claim.

If the sides of the building are falling away, then it is opening the floors to open air. If there is dust pouring out of the building as it collapses that is air escaping.

The air has no reason to search a more indirect path. It would not choose one window to escape from.

Give it up, no one is buying this crap.


Yes but what happens to the air in the elevator shafts, in the ventilation shafts, the stairwells? Did air escape out the sides during the collapse? Yes. Only an idiot would say no. Floor landing on top of each other displace a lot of air. But what happens to the air inside the harder to reach places? Remember what FFs and survivors said they felt when the building collapsed with them inside? A gush of strong wind throwing them down stairs. Just one example. The falsely named "squibs" were the air jets being squirted out from the air being forced down and out through the mechanical rooms. Same thing. Air will find any way to escape. That includes pipes, shafts, elevators, stairwells. Not just the window. But since you are agreeing that air was being displaced and pushed out during the collapse, is it safe to say you now agree that floors were landing on top of each other, also causing the air to be forced out?



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


This is 5 or 6 floors bellow the collapse wave, how did the air get compressed that far down the building?



If air was so compressed it could be forced down all those floors, through elevators shafts and stairwells, compressing the air on all those levels, (it's not just going to compress the air in the shafts), then it would have done more than blow out one window like that. When air is compressed it compresses all the air, it's not like a jet of air, the first level that was compressed would blow out the windows and equalize the pressure.

If the pressure was being produced by the collapse wave, then there would be more pressure the closer to the collapse wave you get, so 5 floors down would be less pressure than directly at or under the collapse wave. So it makes no sense whatsoever that the pressure would escape from a spot that far down.

But it didn't need to do even that, because as I explained the air had plenty of space to escape from as is obvious if you watch the collapses.

Sorry but it's nonsense, and there is nothing you can say that will make it possible.

Edit; BTW before you get crazy, no I'm not arguing they were 'squibs', I'm just telling you it could not be compressed air as you claim. So you need another excuse for those jets of air and debris. Good luck with that.

DBTW; You accused me of lying, you never did, after being asked twice by me and another member, explain that?


edit on 8/3/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Besides the fact that is all nonsense as usual, the same "arguments" count if the jet was from an explosive, its not like an explosive blast is going to blow up just one window. A simple explanation by the way is that a solid object hit the window, breaking it. Once it was broken the pressure decreased and other windows did not break.

Or maybe the conspirators placed a huge fan behind one of the windows in order to confuse us all.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





This is 5 or 6 floors bellow the collapse wave, how did the air get compressed that far down the building?


It's because floors are collapsing. But you have never been able to understand that.

For some reason in your world floors can never collapse.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


What I said was, you are lying if you claim that floors did not pancake, as there is ample proof of it happening by numerous workers on site as well as during the collapse. And despite being shown countless times that you are wrong, you insist on claiming otherwise. So again, either you are woefully misinformed of the events, or you are lying. Which is it? Floors collapsed, floors landed on top of each other. They were not ejected outside the footprint.

Also I dont recall anyone, including you, asking me why I claim you are lying. I asked you if the workers on site cleaning up the mess are lying about the compressed stacks of floors they discovered.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Besides the fact that is all nonsense as usual, the same "arguments" count if the jet was from an explosive, its not like an explosive blast is going to blow up just one window. A simple explanation by the way is that a solid object hit the window, breaking it. Once it was broken the pressure decreased and other windows did not break.


How can you make that claim? Where the blast from an explosive comes from depends on how big it is, and where is it placed. Who said the blast came from a window? You make that claim not me. Your logic is once again flawed. If it wasn't compressed air and it wasn't explosive then what is your explanation? Personally I have no idea what it is, I only know what it could not have been. So, you need to prove your claim, otherwise it's just an excuse with nothing whatsoever to support it.

Your position seem to be, it has to be compressed air because I refuse to believe it might possibly be something else.


Or maybe the conspirators placed a huge fan behind one of the windows in order to confuse us all.


Yes very droll.

What have you added to this discussion exactly?


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



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
 


What I said was, you are lying if you claim that floors did not pancake, as there is ample proof of it happening by numerous workers on site as well as during the collapse.


What evidence? There is NO evidence for pancake collapse, you are the liar. Why do you think NIST rejected the pancake collapse hypothesis? No, it was not a pancake collapse initiation, because there is no such thing.


And despite being shown countless times that you are wrong, you insist on claiming otherwise. So again, either you are woefully misinformed of the events, or you are lying. Which is it? Floors collapsed, floors landed on top of each other. They were not ejected outside the footprint.


You, or anyone else, has not shown anything that contradicts my claims. Have you not noticed your claims get ripped to shreds every time? Talk about delusional.


Also I dont recall anyone, including you, asking me why I claim you are lying. I asked you if the workers on site cleaning up the mess are lying about the compressed stacks of floors they discovered.


Then you must have missed these posts (just like you seem to miss the posts ripping your claims to shreds)...


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Correct, I'm not here for a debate, cuz debating with liars is not productive.



Originally posted by Cassius666

How is Anok lying?




Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Correct, I'm not here for a debate, cuz debating with liars is not productive.



Originally posted by ANOK
Yes how am I lying?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think we all know who the real liars are...


So I am to assume you have no explanation for the jets of air? Just what I thought.


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



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I must admit my text may have been a bit too long for a truther to keep his concentration all the way through, but it already contains an explanation.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


What evidence? There is NO evidence for pancake collapse, you are the liar. Why do you think NIST rejected the pancake collapse hypothesis? No, it was not a pancake collapse initiation, because there is no such thing.



Gee, I dont know, the video I posted of the workers that cut into the pile and discovered that there were up to 14 floors compressed into a stack of 8 feet? Or the accounts of workers cutting in and finding 10 floors in a stack only 6 feet high? What do you call that ANOK? Talk about ignorance. You are shown plenty of evidence and ignore it. What the hell do you call stacks of floors compressed together in the basement?

Once again you fail to understand what FEMA said about pancake collapse initiation, and what NIST said about collapse initiation. That is not my fault. That is because of your poor reading comprehension skills. Not my fault, I blame the education system. FEMA clearly states that "Pancake Collapse" was the suspected initiation, where floor ends failed causing floors to fall onto one another, and leaving the exterior columns unsupported horizontally. That is the "pancake collapse" theory. NIST investigated and found this to be false, that in fact, the floor trusses stayed connected causing the exterior columns to bend inward and then fail, causing the tower to fall. After collapse started, the floors ended up falling on top of each other all the way down. Geeze, you cant even correctly state the theories.




You, or anyone else, has not shown anything that contradicts my claims. Have you not noticed your claims get ripped to shreds every time? Talk about delusional.


So, the workers that were there, who stated that they cut into stacks of compressed floors in the footprints of the towers is not contradicting your claim of "no pancaking of floors"? The fact that there are no floor trusses outside the footprint does not contradict your claim? The fact that there are no steel decking remnants outside the footprint, or even being seen ejected from the towers during collapse, is not contradicting your claims? I have yet to see a small tear in my argument coming from you. Delusional? Me?
I have yet to see you bring forward any evidence to counter my claim, that is not "because I said so." You keep saying the floors someow magically were ejected, apparently in powder form in order to fit through the exterior columns' openings. Why dont I see floor trusses being ejected ANOK? You really want to know what I think? You are just trolling now. Because once the evidence is stacked high against you, you resort to this nonsense. You cant even comprehend what NIST or FEMA stated. You cant even give me a decent scenario of just how the floors were magically ejected outside the footprint, other than showing me a picture of dust and exterior columns falling over and stating that the bulk of the Towers' mass was ejected outside the footprint. And then when you demand evidence, and it is supplied to you, ad nauseum, you ignored it all, and then claim victory. Sad ANOK, really sad.




Then you must have missed these posts (just like you seem to miss the posts ripping your claims to shreds)...


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Correct, I'm not here for a debate, cuz debating with liars is not productive.



Originally posted by Cassius666

How is Anok lying?




Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Correct, I'm not here for a debate, cuz debating with liars is not productive.



Originally posted by ANOK
Yes how am I lying?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think we all know who the real liars are...



Oh so, now I am Joey Canoli? Thats funny, cause I thought my name was GenRadek and you said I called you a liar.
Great now you can't even get names straight or who said what!
And you want to talk about physics?
No wonder you can't comprehend what FEMA and NIST are saying.



So I am to assume you have no explanation for the jets of air? Just what I thought.




Already been said. Many times. I'm not going to retype everything that was said for the past week just because you are too lazy to do it yourself. Its been explained. Just because you can't seem to comprehend or understand it, it is not my problem. I just find it sad you ignore everything that does not fit your fantasy.
edit on 8/4/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Annok is displaying classic ‘truther’ mantra. Never admit to anything that might impact the conspiracy.

It reminds me of what my best friend told me years ago.
When your wife/girlfriend catches you with your hand in someone else’s cookie jar. The best way to deal with it is to lie, deny and stick to it.

Annok will never admit he is wrong. He doesn’t want to wear the banner of falability.

edit on 4-8-2011 by samkent because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Gee, I dont know, the video I posted of the workers that cut into the pile and discovered that there were up to 14 floors compressed into a stack of 8 feet? Or the accounts of workers cutting in and finding 10 floors in a stack only 6 feet high? What do you call that ANOK? Talk about ignorance. You are shown plenty of evidence and ignore it. What the hell do you call stacks of floors compressed together in the basement?


And the problem is you think a pancake collapse can have the energy to do that. You are still ignoring that the majority of the mass was ejected out of the footprint. So what crushed those 14 floors?

Did you even watch your own video? They said the pile was not as big as they expected. So I'm not the only one saying this, the people that were there said this. Again this is you try to spin something to support your argument when it doesn't.


Once again you fail to understand what FEMA said about pancake collapse initiation, and what NIST said about collapse initiation.


No, you are twisting and spinning what NIST said, I understand it perfectly. You have to read and understand what they are saying here, the wording makes it easy to be confused as the meaning of pancake collapse, and their initiation hypothesis.


NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

wtc.nist.gov...

Pancake collapse is not a collapse initiation, something has to fail for a pancake collapse to ensue, so no they are not rejecting it as the collapse initiation. Using clever wording they are trying to hide the fact that they didn't cover the actual collapse, only the initiation, without actually admitting it.

Of course their collapse initiation hypothesis is extremely flawed also. Common sense should tell you that when a steel beam is sagging it can not also pull on something. The steel sags because it is soft, if it could pull in the columns it wouldn't sag in the first place, it would have just pulled in the columns.


Why dont I see floor trusses being ejected ANOK?


Why don't you see them in the footprint of the building then? Why did FEMA release a graphic of the 360d arc of the rubble pile? The rubble in the footprint of the towers was no higher than the lobby level, that means the majority of the mass was ejected outwards during the collapse, regardless of what you can, or can not see.

Maybe it was all turned to dust, and pieces too small to even recognize? All that concrete and steel had to have been destroyed during the collapse after all.


Already been said. Many times. I'm not going to retype everything that was said for the past week just because you are too lazy to do it yourself. Its been explained. Just because you can't seem to comprehend or understand it, it is not my problem. I just find it sad you ignore everything that does not fit your fantasy.


LOL I rebutted you claims, you're supposed to explain the holes I pointed out in your hypotheses, and you come back with a rant. That is typical of you when you know you're losing the debate. Don't lose yer rag man.

Oh, and yes I guess I confused you with Joey, my mistake, but lets be honest, you all say the same thing anyway, and if you haven't said it you have insinuated it.


edit on 8/4/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

And the problem is you think a pancake collapse can have the energy to do that. You are still ignoring that the majority of the mass was ejected out of the footprint. So what crushed those 14 floors?



Where ANOK? Where was the majority of the mass ejected out? How can entire floors be ejected out? You have yet to explain that. #2. What crushed those floors? Hmm. How about all those floors landing on top of each other?




Did you even watch your own video? They said the pile was not as big as they expected. So I'm not the only one saying this, the people that were there said this. Again this is you try to spin something to support your argument when it doesn't.


Hmm, well what exactly did the workers say? Oh yes, the floors were compressed. You do know what compressed means right? Now, what happens when you compress something? Simple logic ANOK.





No, you are twisting and spinning what NIST said, I understand it perfectly. You have to read and understand what they are saying here, the wording makes it easy to be confused as the meaning of pancake collapse, and their initiation hypothesis.


NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

wtc.nist.gov...

Pancake collapse is not a collapse initiation, something has to fail for a pancake collapse to ensue, so no they are not rejecting it as the collapse initiation. Using clever wording they are trying to hide the fact that they didn't cover the actual collapse, only the initiation, without actually admitting it.

Of course their collapse initiation hypothesis is extremely flawed also. Common sense should tell you that when a steel beam is sagging it can not also pull on something. The steel sags because it is soft, if it could pull in the columns it wouldn't sag in the first place, it would have just pulled in the columns.


And what exactly was FEMA stating about the initiator of collapse? Oh thats right! That failure of floor truss connections, causing the floors to pancake onto the floor below it, causing larger unsupported section of exterior columns to fail. When the floor truss seat connections failed, it caused a floor to land onto the floor below it. THIS is what FEMA stated. THIS is what NIST found not to be true. The very phrase "pancake collapse theory" came after FEMA's preliminary report, to describe the event. Hence why it became the "pancake collapse theory." NIST made a better investigation, and discovered that the floor truss ends stayed connected to the columns, causing the beams to be bent in. This was observed. Ergo, they "debunked" the pancake theory earlier. THAT is the whole issue. Not what you are trying to twist it into. Reading comprehension ANOK. That is all it is.






Why don't you see them in the footprint of the building then? Why did FEMA release a graphic of the 360d arc of the rubble pile? The rubble in the footprint of the towers was no higher than the lobby level, that means the majority of the mass was ejected outwards during the collapse, regardless of what you can, or can not see.

Maybe it was all turned to dust, and pieces too small to even recognize? All that concrete and steel had to have been destroyed during the collapse after all.


Excuse me. Do I have to repost the workers that cut into the pile and found the remains again? Or are you just going to ignore it AGAIN? Embracing ignorance, are we ANOK?




LOL I rebutted you claims, you're supposed to explain the holes I pointed out in your hypotheses, and you come back with a rant. That is typical of you when you know you're losing the debate. Don't lose yer rag man.

Oh, and yes I guess I confused you with Joey, my mistake, but lets be honest, you all say the same thing anyway, and if you haven't said it you have insinuated it.


ANOK, you have not. By just repeating: "No the majority of the mass was ejected outside the footprint" does not equal a "rebuttal" . You have yet to even explain how it would be physically possible for the floor trusses, steel decking, and concrete slabs to be ejected in the first place. You admit you have no idea, have no proof of it happening, you ignore the workers that stated they discovered stacks of compressed floors, and then have the gall to say that no floors pancaked at all in the collapse, and to top it off, purposely misquote NIST and FEMA and twist both theories into something completely different. That is why I ask you, are you purposely ignoring the facts, misunderstanding the events, or do you know full well what I say is true, but in order to perpetuate the CD idea, you have to ignore and lie? Which is it ANOK? Cause so far, I have shown ample evidence of floors stacked on top of each other. that is evidence enough of floors that pancaked DURING the collapse.
edit on 8/4/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
ANOK I see a few posts back you are calling people liars etc well lets look at some FACTS, like I have said before regarding the floorslabs EVEN IF you carefully stacked the concrete from the floorslabs on top of each other the total height of the concrete would be just over 41ft thats being careful and not dropping them from 1300ft 1200ft 1100ft etc etc.

Compressed concrete decking and trusses



Whats ironic truther sites posted this as proof of moltem metal till some pointed out to them you can see office paperwork embedded in it


You also the Steve Spak pictures that show the compacted floors in which you could see steel decking and the tuss steel.

You also seem to have avoided answering yet again why the floorslab connections are the same all the way from top to bottom which does not support your claim that floors below support floors above them


You also get a bit confused with newtons laws as well when you keep quoting your equal and opposite mantra!

Now since the floor connections are the same they only support that floor, now to make it simple for you to understand lets go back to a 2 object collision.

The falling mass is the big truck the FLOORSLAB impacted is the car!!!

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

As you can see from the text below YOU cant just use one law in isolation!


In a head-on collision the forces on the two vehicles are constrained to be the same by Newton's third law. But from both Newton's second law and the work-energy principle it becomes evident that it is safer to be in the bigger truck.


As you can see but is a big word in the statement above!

Yes the third law states equal and opposite BUT if the impact force is so great that the floor connections exceed their ultimate load they FAIL!, and as it has been stated before when floors fail the walls lose stability.

Thats the whole problem with the tube in tube design!

SO ANOK do you want to sit in a car while I drive a truck with 15 times the mass at 19mph at you, I mean after all if you are right you will have nothing to worry about!



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

No matter what it displays an obvious lack of scientific curiosity. For whatever reason. The most amazing thing about 9/11 is how the top of the south tower tilted 22+ degrees in a couple of second 50 minutes after the building stopped vibrating from the plane impact. That required the bottom of the upper broken portion to move horizontally 20 feet and yet the plane impact only moved the building 15 inches.

psik


If you ACTUALLY watch the videos psikey you can see what happens when the collapse starts watch .



The reason it rotates is the bulk of the damage is at the impact side obviously and because the sides and elevation at the opposite side provide resistance it rotates

Have you ever played JENGA take some of the blocks away half way up on one side what happens to the blocks above (scientific curiosity
) You have shown that you get lots of things WRONG take your washer paper tube model for example!




top topics



 
27
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join