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: 41
23
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I just love it how people say the building collapsed in freefall, when the debris is outpacing the actual collapse of the building. So that means what, the debris had jet engines or rockets propelling it down? They say the buildings collapsed in 10 seconds. Then why is it that when the collapse is actually timed, at 10 seconds, the debris is still a good 20 floors above the ground? Who remembers Rosie *shudder* O'Donnell and her asinine comments?



edit to add:

it appears the audio is not synced. I do recall is was before, and now its messed up, but maybe its my computer being stupid. If anyone knows how to re-sync the audio, it would be of great help.

The two videos of the collapse they use for the times in this video can also be found and timed in your very own home.



Start from 3:32 and start the stopwatch the moment the sound of collapse is heard. You can use the Chief's WTC expression as a help to know when, but start the watch the roar is first heard, and stop the moment the last crash smash is heard. Its starts at 3:34 and the last crash is heard at 3:59.

Next video:



10 seconds into the video, debris is 20 floors above the ground. WTC is still standing.

edit on 6/27/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


It really is an irrelevant point. It doesn't matter if the collapses took 10 seconds or 10 minutes, they simply could not have collapsed themselves through the path of most resistance without some help removing that resistance.

The speed is irrelevant, what is important is the acceleration of the collapse wave. The collapse should have slowed due to resistance, but it simply fell as if there was no resistance. So either the resistance was removed ahead of the collapse wave, or the collapse wave was constantly accelerating in order to maintain a constant acceleration through the resistance.

IF there was resistance from undamaged structure Ke would have been lost to other energy, for the collapse to continue through that resistance, without slowing down, then the resistance had to have been removed ahead of the collapse wave. The ejecting of debris, crushing of concrete, telescoping of the core etc., can not have been caused by the buildings own structure, as there simply was not enough falling debris to compromise what is was falling on.

So debunking the collapse speed is not debunking controlled demolition. IF you can explain the lack of resistance, while taking into account the laws of motion, you might have something. It has yet to be done, so good luck with that one.


edit on 6/27/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


ANOK its a tube within a tube the floors COULD fall internally when are you going to realise that, 2 bolts on each truss end, 2 bolts!!!!!! NO ONE knows how much damage was done YOU cant argue with that.

There was around 700-800 tons on concrete on each floor using the specs given for it, and also the weight of the steel decking the concrete was poured on plus the trusses PLUS anything thing else on each floor.

If the connections failed the floors could fall inside the tube!

Answer this DID THE FLOOR CONNECTIONS GET STRONGER THE LOWER DOWN THE TOWER YOU WENT!!

the answer is of course NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 


ANOK its a tube within a tube the floors COULD fall internally when are you going to realise that, 2 bolts on each truss end, 2 bolts!!!!!! NO ONE knows how much damage was done YOU cant argue with that.


So how do you explain the core collapsing then?


There was around 700-800 tons on concrete on each floor using the specs given for it, and also the weight of the steel decking the concrete was poured on plus the trusses PLUS anything thing else on each floor.


Again you are ignoring the laws of motion. Each floors was designed to hold its own weight, plus a safety factor of at least x2 (probably more like x5 or greater). The force experience by both the collapsing floor and the impacted floor are EQUAL. Equal force on both objects is not going to cause one object to be destroyed while the other stays intact when both object are of equal mass.


If the connections failed the floors could fall inside the tube!


But again the floors are not going to ignore the laws of motion.


Answer this DID THE FLOOR CONNECTIONS GET STRONGER THE LOWER DOWN THE TOWER YOU WENT!!

the answer is of course NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Why would that matter? Even if what you say happened the floors would not completely crush themselves, 15 concrete slabs can not cause 85 concrete slabs to be completely destroyed. If you take a stack of concrete slabs separated by lets say toothpicks and you dropped a slab on top, all the toothpicks might fail but the concrete slabs themselves are not going to be ejected out and all crushed into dust. You will still have a stack of concrete slabs.

The core was 5" thick box columns tapering to quarter inch at the top, how did it telescope through an increasing path of most resistance?


edit on 6/27/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


And again, its like you completely ignored my post, or didnt even bother reading it. Typical Truther move ANOK. Thank you for confirming what I always suspect about Truthers and the truth.

You ignored the truss connections. You ignored the paper I linked to about that. You ignored everything.


I thought ATS was to to "Deny Ignorance", but as in typical Truther fashion, you embrace it. So you have no comment whatsoever to my earlier post about the truss connections?

And how about answering wmd_2008's question: Did the floor connections get stronger the lower down the Tower you went? You claim resistance was stronger lower down. Really? Answer wmd's question.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

So how do you explain the core collapsing then?



Was it meant to stand on its own unsupported? Or after having a section of it fall over, or getting damaged lower down by the collapse?



Again you are ignoring the laws of motion. Each floors was designed to hold its own weight, plus a safety factor of at least x2 (probably more like x5 or greater). The force experience by both the collapsing floor and the impacted floor are EQUAL. Equal force on both objects is not going to cause one object to be destroyed while the other stays intact when both object are of equal mass.
But again the floors are not going to ignore the laws of motion.



Blah blah blah, your magical laws of motion, that is not a response to the questions at hand. Tell me how a floor is suppose to withstand 20-30 floors impacting it? I asked you to give me a direct answer and a direct site or paper that specifically said the entire single floor is suppose to withstand 20-30 floors dropping onto it. Also, give me an idea of just how strong those welded on truss seats were suppose to be. Again, your lack of WTC design knowledge is showing through.




Why would that matter? Even if what you say happened the floors would not completely crush themselves, 15 concrete slabs can not cause 85 concrete slabs to be completely destroyed. If you take a stack of concrete slabs separated by lets say toothpicks and you dropped a slab on top, all the toothpicks might fail but the concrete slabs themselves are not going to be ejected out and all crushed into dust. You will still have a stack of concrete slabs.

The core was 5" thick box columns tapering to quarter inch at the top, how did it telescope through an increasing path of most resistance?


Oh so the floors would just magically levitate? You have 15 concrete slabs resting on a number of welded on floor truss seats, connected to column trees. That is impacting each floor below it singly. Each floor below the collapsing debris is being impacted by one more floor. Tell me again, did the floor truss connections get stronger lower down?

And who said the concrete slabs were crushed and ejected into dust outside? Where the hell did you pull that little nugget? Did you ignore the tons of drywall and sheetrock used in the core and on the floors in the WTC? Also, what is this:


Look like pancaked floors to me.

As for the core, didnt you notice the Spire? There was the core, or what was left of it after having a section of it fallen onto it, and causing some sections to collapse with the initial collapse.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Just in case you are not sure in this picture.



The grey material with reinforement sticking out thats CONCRETE just to keep you right!!!!



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK
 


You ignored the truss connections. You ignored the paper I linked to about that. You ignored everything.


No I didn't. The truss connections make no difference, the laws of motion still apply. I did address your point, did you not read the analogy I mentioned using simple concrete slabs without any connection but toothpicks?


I thought ATS was to to "Deny Ignorance", but as in typical Truther fashion, you embrace it. So you have no comment whatsoever to my earlier post about the truss connections?


Again I addressed your truss connections. The truss connections do not change the laws of motion.


And how about answering wmd_2008's question: Did the floor connections get stronger the lower down the Tower you went? You claim resistance was stronger lower down. Really? Answer wmd's question.


I addressed this also lol. It doesn't matter if they did or not, it does not change the laws of motion.

Sorry if I consider your questions irrelevant but they are.

How about answering my question, how did the core telescope through the increasing path of most resistance?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 


Just in case you are not sure in this picture.



The grey material with reinforement sticking out thats CONCRETE just to keep you right!!!!


So what? How does that change the laws of motion?

There is was no rubble in the footprint any higher than the lobby level. That is less than 10% of the total building.

IF it was a pancake collapse there would be complete floors stacked up in the footprint. If I'm very generous and allow 2 impacted floors to be destroyed per every one impacting floor, 15 floors falling on 95 would mean there should be still about 65 floors stacked up in the footprint. Even if three floors failed for every one that still leaves 40 floors in the footprint.

But obviously the majority of the mass was ejected during the collapse, not afterwords lol, so where was the mass to do all the crushing?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Was it meant to stand on its own unsupported? Or after having a section of it fall over, or getting damaged lower down by the collapse?


There is no reason why it wouldn't, it is a common engineered structure of columns and cross bracing.

No amount of damage is going to cause it to collapse through an increasing path of most resistance.



Blah blah blah, your magical laws of motion, that is not a response to the questions at hand.


Typical OSer response pretend the laws of motion do not apply. The laws of motion are a known entity, you are just showing your ignorance.


Tell me how a floor is suppose to withstand 20-30 floors impacting it? I asked you to give me a direct answer and a direct site or paper that specifically said the entire single floor is suppose to withstand 20-30 floors dropping onto it. Also, give me an idea of just how strong those welded on truss seats were suppose to be. Again, your lack of WTC design knowledge is showing through.


I already explained this to you over and over, asking me to repeat it is not going to change the outcome.

You are looking at it incorrectly. It was not a stack of floors falling on one floor, it was a stack of floors falling on a stack of floors. One of the biggest lies in this debate is this, Bazants paper uses this method, and it's why his paper is nonsense. By saying it was a block of floors falling on one floor is ignoring the resistance of the lower floors.



Oh so the floors would just magically levitate?


What lol?


You have 15 concrete slabs resting on a number of welded on floor truss seats, connected to column trees. That is impacting each floor below it singly. Each floor below the collapsing debris is being impacted by one more floor. Tell me again, did the floor truss connections get stronger lower down?


Wrong. It is a stack of floors falling on a stack of floors. You can not keep ignoring all the mass bellow the top floors just like you can't ignore the mass of the floors above the dropping floor. BIG mistake and your calculations will always favour collapse using that method.

It is either one floor falling on one floor, or one block of floors falling on one block of floors.

Unless you learn to understand that you will always be wrong.


And who said the concrete slabs were crushed and ejected into dust outside? Where the hell did you pull that little nugget?


Then where is the stack of floors in the footprint?


As for the core, didnt you notice the Spire? There was the core, or what was left of it after having a section of it fallen onto it, and causing some sections to collapse with the initial collapse.


That was just one corner of the core, the core was 47 columns cross braced together. It does not explain how the core collapsed, when according to the OS the floors collapsed because the trusses failed. I guess your argument is the core could not stand without the floors, but that is nonsense, you have no evidence for that.
The core was quite capable of standing by itself, at least it could not telescope itself through an increasing path of most resistance. You keep ignoring that, and many other points.


edit on 6/27/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
No I didn't. The truss connections make no difference, the laws of motion still apply. I did address your point, did you not read the analogy I mentioned using simple concrete slabs without any connection but toothpicks?


ANOK, your oversimplified version of physics is clouding any and all sense of rational thinking. The laws of motion were in play, but as usual, you ignore everything else. This is not a perfect elastic collision. This cannot be modeled with two solid balls. You are applying grade school physics, to something that is so much more complex, that to just say "Oh Newton's Third law forbids it" means nothing when you dont use everything else.




Again I addressed your truss connections. The truss connections do not change the laws of motion.






I addressed this also lol. It doesn't matter if they did or not, it does not change the laws of motion.

Sorry if I consider your questions irrelevant but they are.

How about answering my question, how did the core telescope through the increasing path of most resistance?


Ah yes the truss connection are irrelevant. And you of course ignored reading the paper I linked to them. Boy I'd love to see you go up against any of the engineers that wrote technical papers about how the WTC collapsed, and watch how you desperately try to fight them with your paper shield of "Newton's 3rd law". You claim that the floor trusses are irrelevant. How? YOu never answered the question of do the floor truss connections get stronger the lower in the building, yes or no. Hand waving them away and saying they are irrelevant just shows me your utter lack of basic comprehension of the nature of the WTC design. Who said the core columns telescoped through the increasing path of resistance? I asked you about the floor trusses first.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 


Just in case you are not sure in this picture.



The grey material with reinforement sticking out thats CONCRETE just to keep you right!!!!


So what? How does that change the laws of motion?

There is was no rubble in the footprint any higher than the lobby level. That is less than 10% of the total building.

IF it was a pancake collapse there would be complete floors stacked up in the footprint. If I'm very generous and allow 2 impacted floors to be destroyed per every one impacting floor, 15 floors falling on 95 would mean there should be still about 65 floors stacked up in the footprint. Even if three floors failed for every one that still leaves 40 floors in the footprint.

But obviously the majority of the mass was ejected during the collapse, not afterwords lol, so where was the mass to do all the crushing?


Once again, explain how and where the hell you pulled this gem of " majority of the mass being ejected outside the footprint" from? The mass was inside, as in inside the WTC columns. Didnt you see the floors collapse down, and then the exterior columns peeled away? The dust ejected was mostly crushed drywall and sheetrock.
Not the actual floor and concrete and floor truss. Where were the floor trusses being ejected? They were connected to the concrete slabs, so if the majority of the mass was ejected, why dont I see trusses ejected with the concrete??? ANOK, I can see you are pulling this nonsense from thin air. Making stuff up is pretty low.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
There is no reason why it wouldn't, it is a common engineered structure of columns and cross bracing.

No amount of damage is going to cause it to collapse through an increasing path of most resistance.


How exactly did it collapse through most resistance? From what I saw, a large part of it was destroyed via the initial collapse, and then it collapsed from the base and fell over. I dont see how you are trying to make it look as if it just fell through itself. You are just making erroneous assumptions, and then trying to support it by using your personal incredulity do all the talking, and claiming how somehow, N3L prohibits everything. Talk about trying to keep it together with shoestring and bubble gum.




Typical OSer response pretend the laws of motion do not apply. The laws of motion are a known entity, you are just showing your ignorance.


They do apply and did. Its just that your warped and incorrect (and woefully lacking) knowledge of physics prohibits you from seeing the facts.



I already explained this to you over and over, asking me to repeat it is not going to change the outcome.

You are looking at it incorrectly. It was not a stack of floors falling on one floor, it was a stack of floors falling on a stack of floors. One of the biggest lies in this debate is this, Bazants paper uses this method, and it's why his paper is nonsense. By saying it was a block of floors falling on one floor is ignoring the resistance of the lower floors.



Yes it was. What was impacted right below the stack of floors? One floor. What happened to that floor? It was crushed and destroyed and now is a part of the main block. The next floor is now being impacted with the force and momentum of the initial stack plus the newly destroyed floor, and so on and so on. The only thing that was going to stand up to the first stack of floors falling onto it is the one floor directly below it. Thats it. That floor's floor truss connections were the only things giving resistance to the weight and momentum of the 300 floor stack dropping on it. You cannot say it was hitting all the stacks at the same time. Each floor below it was being hit by the combined mass f the collapsing block above it. ANOK, it was a tube filled with a series of sheets of concrete and each sheet was held up by the truss seats that were welded to the exterior columns. Each floor impact severed the connections allowing the floor to drop down with the mass above it onto the floor below.



That was just one corner of the core, the core was 47 columns cross braced together. It does not explain how the core collapsed, when according to the OS the floors collapsed because the trusses failed. I guess your argument is the core could not stand without the floors, but that is nonsense, you have no evidence for that.
The core was quite capable of standing by itself, at least it could not telescope itself through an increasing path of most resistance. You keep ignoring that, and many other points.


The floors and exterior columns all collapsed and fell away first, along with a part of the core. The rest of the core remained standing, but due to the damage incurred, it too, collapsed and fell over. And agian, you claim it telescoped into itself. Where? How? When? I saw it fall down by itself.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK
 


Just in case you are not sure in this picture.



The grey material with reinforement sticking out thats CONCRETE just to keep you right!!!!


So what? How does that change the laws of motion?

There is was no rubble in the footprint any higher than the lobby level. That is less than 10% of the total building.

IF it was a pancake collapse there would be complete floors stacked up in the footprint. If I'm very generous and allow 2 impacted floors to be destroyed per every one impacting floor, 15 floors falling on 95 would mean there should be still about 65 floors stacked up in the footprint. Even if three floors failed for every one that still leaves 40 floors in the footprint.

But obviously the majority of the mass was ejected during the collapse, not afterwords lol, so where was the mass to do all the crushing?


There were. Didnt you see the pictures I posted?

What was ejected was the drywall and crushed sheetrock. Yes some concrete too, but the majority stayed in. Where do you have evidence the majority was ejected out? As far as I can see, you are pulling this out of a hat.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


It wasn't a stack of floors falling on a stack of floors the CONNECTIONS of one slab had to suppprt the dynamic load of the falling floors can YOU not see that are you really that dim, EXPLAIN how the floors below the floor being impacted are taking the load its impossible because of the floor design.

The only thing taking the load was the impacted floor's connections!!!!!!!!!

Also re the spire collapse there are other engineering principles to consider that would aid the collapse of that!



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
I am still amazed how anyone can find the idea that the floors and core columns somehow magically ejected sounds reasonable. In no way this idea supports any realistic explosives theory as explosive charges that take down buildings also can not eject floors and core columns. This whole argument is not an argument against the official explanation, it is an argument against physics as we know it.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I am still amazed how anyone can find the idea that the floors and core columns somehow magically ejected sounds reasonable. In no way this idea supports any realistic explosives theory as explosive charges that take down buildings also can not eject floors and core columns. This whole argument is not an argument against the official explanation, it is an argument against physics as we know it.


No but high end explosives did pulverize each floor into dust and debris. You watching the same thing or what?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 


Clearly not. I see floors slam into each other, pulverizing the concrete. I see neither visual or audible evidence of any explosive. Your theory is as silly as most other conspiracy theories. Why wound conspirators want to blow up the concrete in the floors? That makes no sense what-so-ever.
edit on 28-6-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 


Where is the evidence of those 'high end" explosives? Are you serious here. Why would they use explosives to destroy sheet rock and concrete if it was a CD. Makes no sense and you seem to be talking in circles.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 


Most of the dust you saw was from sheetrock thousands of sq mtrs in each building.

Did you forget about that or more to the point did you even consider it.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join