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.

 

Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

page: 16
23
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
So, the argument is that the steel in the core of the buildings melted, sending the buildings into a 'pancake collapse' at 1/20 of a second less than free fall speed.

What melted the steel core all the way to the ground in such a quick and deadly fashion?

Gravity? Arm chairs and jet fuel? The entire core was melted instantly?

That makes very little sense.

Where was the friction that would have been created due to the soundness of the structure under the collapsing top floors? Fifteen is not greater than eighty.

I think if that is true, we should evacuate every steel building in the world, because that is quite a threat.

Heaven forbid someone do their homework and realize that fire has never brought down a steel building, ever, in the history of steel buildings.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 





The tower got hit at the top, a little structural damage and there was an office fire. No reason for it to collapse at free fall acceleration. You see, I don't even need to conjure up fancy terms, I still have common sense left.


The floors were not designed to handle the kinetic energy from the weight and downward load from above.

Sometimes common sense is not enough.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Once again. Explain the missing truss seats Truther.


Again with this? (Why do you keep calling me a truther like it's an insult lol? If this debate makes you angry you should find another hobby).

Missing trusses does not prove pancake collapse, sorry.

Maybe you should call NIST, and ask them why they didn't make the leap from missing trusses to pancake collapse?

Maybe whatever energy was used to cause the collapse took out the trusses, I don't know because this is all hypothetical, and I prefer to debate facts not opinions.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by dadgad
 





The tower got hit at the top, a little structural damage and there was an office fire. No reason for it to collapse at free fall acceleration. You see, I don't even need to conjure up fancy terms, I still have common sense left.


The floors were not designed to handle the kinetic energy from the weight and downward load from above.

Sometimes common sense is not enough.


Actually they were. Stop making things up.

How foolish to believe this could happen!

The WTC core columns were cut. With Thermite. (nano) Thats my final take.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Common sense and physics tells us that a controlled demolition was not need to take the towers down.

The weakened floor trusses sagged then they pulled on both the core columns and permiter columns. Because the perimiter columns provide only 40% of the building's support and were weakened the most by fire, the sagging caused the perimiter columns to bow inward.




I don't know how to post GIF's on here but this short one shows how it would happen perfectly.


edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   


The floors were not designed to handle the kinetic energy from the weight and downward load from above
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


The weight doesn't provide kinetic energy. The weight provides the gravitational potential energy. This is the proof that you have not even taken the physics 101 course.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 





Actually they were. Stop making things up.


Link please.

Show me where it says that the floors were made to support the upper floors downward force.

Again if you would read a little, instead of watching someone's made up youtube vids you might learn something.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

edit on 6/18/2011 by ontarff because: Moderator please delete...



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by notsoperfect



The floors were not designed to handle the kinetic energy from the weight and downward load from above
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


The weight doesn't provide kinetic energy. The weight provides the gravitational potential energy. This is the proof that you have not even taken the physics 101 course.



mmm
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
All I hear are crickets, ladies and gentlemen...

Refutation of any of the points made here?

No?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 





The weight doesn't provide kinetic energy. The weight provides the gravitational potential energy
.


The kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion.[1] It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_Energy


The kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion.


I believe that they are in motion as they are falling down.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


here's my whole deal right now, the OS says that the airplanes fuel melted the steel and caused the buildings collapse(first off jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough) but that's beside the point. When you watch the videos and you see the giant fireball erupt from the building, to me it looks like that is most of the Jet fuel, then shortly after the smoke becomes black, meaning that the fire isn't burning as hot as the initial explosion. Planes have crashed into buildings before without such a collapse. WTC7 wasn't even hit

What brought down building 7 if not controlled demolition?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by someguy420
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


here's my whole deal right now, the OS says that the airplanes fuel melted the steel and caused the buildings collapse(first off jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough) but that's beside the point. When you watch the videos and you see the giant fireball erupt from the building, to me it looks like that is most of the Jet fuel, then shortly after the smoke becomes black, meaning that the fire isn't burning as hot as the initial explosion. Planes have crashed into buildings before without such a collapse. WTC7 wasn't even hit

What brought down building 7 if not controlled demolition?




In case you missed my last post, here it is again.
Common sense and physics tells us that a controlled demolition was not need to take the towers down.

The weakened floor trusses sagged then they pulled on both the core columns and permiter columns. Because the perimiter columns provide only 40% of the building's support and were weakened the most by fire, the sagging caused the perimiter columns to bow inward.




I don't know how to post GIF's on here but this short one shows how it would happen perfectly.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
No refutation needed for some fantasy facts, let us know when the guy gets an engineering degree. To add, why dont the OP try to explain the cutted-melted core columns? That must be a result of the pancaking too right?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 





This is the proof that you have not even taken the physics 101 course.


Tell me please.

Where did I say that I took Physics?



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by dadgad
 





Actually they were. Stop making things up.


Link please.

Show me where it says that the floors were made to support the upper floors downward force.

Again if you would read a little, instead of watching someone's made up youtube vids you might learn something.


You show me links instead.

As said above. The weight did not at all provide the kinetic energy you are fantasizing about.

Furthermore, even if the fires weakened the trusses and caused a collapse (of that particular story), the collapse would have been stopped by the other floors because those trusses were not exposed to any significant heat. Neither would there have been enough kinetic energy to support your claim since this entire scenario (science-fiction) took place at the top of the building.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by someguy420
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


here's my whole deal right now, the OS says that the airplanes fuel melted the steel and caused the buildings collapse(first off jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough) but that's beside the point. When you watch the videos and you see the giant fireball erupt from the building, to me it looks like that is most of the Jet fuel, then shortly after the smoke becomes black, meaning that the fire isn't burning as hot as the initial explosion. Planes have crashed into buildings before without such a collapse. WTC7 wasn't even hit

What brought down building 7 if not controlled demolition?




Oh and building 7 has been explained COUNTLESS times in this thread, please pay attention.


(Building 7 explained)
www.youtube.com...
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by notsoperfect
 





The weight doesn't provide kinetic energy. The weight provides the gravitational potential energy
.


The kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion.[1] It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_Energy


The kinetic energy of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion.


I believe that they are in motion as they are falling down.


Again. Wikipedia.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticAndBeliever
 


Then where were the intact core columns, if the floors just disengaged from them?
They melted due to what in your hypothesis? Kinetic energy?




top topics



 
23
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join