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.

 

A question for believers or 'OSers'....

page: 19
17
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 




No I want explosives demolitions explained to me using Truther Physics not real physics you know the

" Its is impossible for two 116ton jets carrying 23k gallons of fuel CAN collapse three massive structures weighing 1,200,000tons(combined) of concrete and steel."

kind of physics. Why is it that:

"1300 pounds of explosives CAN collapse three massive structures weighing 1,200,000tons(combined) of concrete and steel."

But:

"Its is impossible for two 116ton jets carrying 23k gallons of fuel CAN collapse three massive structures weighing 1,200,000tons(combined) of concrete and steel."

Can you explain Truther Physics to me.
"Truther Physics"?


Would you like for me to tutor you in physics, is that what you are asking? Or are you implying that "truther physics" is outside of reality? I'm a little confused, you seem to have mixed up my post with quotes from dilly1, and I am not him. Don't group all people who question the official story into one "truther" category, because even amongst ourselves we disagree on certain aspects so it's unfair for one persons opinion to speak for all of us.

But, to answer your question, explosives are used on the key structural areas of the building in the most efficient way possible in order to bring down the building. An airplane slamming into the building cannot be compared with a demolition team studying the structure of a building, determining exactly where to place explosives, and exactly when to detonate them in order for the building to fall.
edit on 18-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


The first guiding principle of Truther Physics:

"If I use the word "physics" in a sentence everything that follows is the undeniable truth".

The second guiding principle of Truther Physics:

"If I use the word "phsyics" in my post first, then the burden immeadiately shifts to any challenger to prove I am wrong, I have no burden to prove I am right based on the first guiding principle of Truther Physics".



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

You keep telling us that that all 4 walls are laying on top of the rubble it seems that you should know which was which. If i was making that claim I would know which was which.


The walls are circled in red, what difference does it make which is which? It's not a claim it is fact, if you can't see them you need a new monitor or glasses mate. If you really need to know then you figure it out, it shouldn't be that hard for you.

You are just deflecting my point with a nonsense question.

Why don't you attempt to explain how the four outer walls ended up ON TOP of the collapsed building from a gravity induced collapse? Can you do that? Can you show with physics how that is possible? If you can then you need to contact Demolition Inc., and explain to them how they are wasting their time and money using carefully placed explosives to do what according to you can be done by simply setting the building on fire.

Yes, I will keep telling you that all four outer walls are laying on top of the rest of the collapsed building because they are, and it is evidence the building landed mostly in its own footprint. It is kinda the point of an 'implosion demolition'.

Pay attention...


The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute, and it is generally the safest way to go. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first, in the same way you would chop into a tree from the north side if you wanted it to fall in that direction. Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble...

...Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Look at this pic waypastvne and then try to think how it could mimic an implosion demolition from gravity alone...



Now its up to you to explain it, not try to deflect away from the obvious. If you don't have the experience, or education, to explain that then you shouldn't be arguing for something you don't really understand.
I'm guessing though you will still not directly address this point, prove me wrong mate?


edit on 8/18/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



The walls are circled in red, what difference does it make which is which? It's not a claim it is fact, if you can't see them you need a new monitor or glasses mate. If you really need to know then you figure it out, it shouldn't be that hard for you.


The issue is kind of simple, you keep claiming that the proof of a controlled demolition is the "symetrical" arrangement of the collapsed FOUR walls. The matter of the fact is that you have not shown that the pieces you keep circling in red on that one photo are, in fact, pieces of the each of the four walls. If they are not then the building did not collapse symetrically as you keep proposing. So prove that those outlined pieces are pieces of ALL four walls.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 




The issue is kind of simple, you keep claiming that the proof of a controlled demolition is the "symetrical" arrangement of the collapsed FOUR walls. The matter of the fact is that you have not shown that the pieces you keep circling in red on that one photo are, in fact, pieces of the each of the four walls. If they are not then the building did not collapse symetrically as you keep proposing. So prove that those outlined pieces are pieces of ALL four walls.
Nobody has made the claim that after the building imploded, the walls fell in symmetrically.

If you can find me a single example, just one example of an implosion that left the four outer walls perfectly symmetrical after the collapse, that would help your argument.

The building did collapse symmetrically:
And this quote from the article that ANOK just posted should underscore the fact that only a controlled demolition could cause that:

In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.


This thread that I just made, The Impossible Collapse Of WTC7, explains how the collapse is impossible based on the damage that the building sustained, and contains several expert testimonies/interviews, and a lot more.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I am not completely sure, but I think i might have just fallen in love with you a little bit..... That is EXACTLY how it is!!!!

There are several other little truther subtleties that are frequent here too.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

What has 'ariel' [sic] pics of 1&2 have to do with WTC 7, and the evidence that it collapsed into its own footprint?

The towers did not collapse in the same way as 7. The towers did not collapse into their footprints, too tall and skinny for that style of collapse. The towers debris was ejected in a symmetrical 360d arc as shown by FEMA...



So now you are going the "Towers did not fall into their footprint" argument. Ok. Did you notice what exactly was laid out outside the "footprint"? I'll give you a hint: It aint the interior.



The fact that debris was ejected, and not still in the footprint, proves that it was not a 'pancake collapse' as claimed by OSers. Even NIST rejected the pancake collapse hypothesis.


And once again, you state FALSE information, which leads me to believe that you are purposely disseminating disinformation. What was ejected in that debris? Oh yes, dust. From what? How about for starters, the tons and tons of drywall, sheetrock, fireproofing. Sure maybe even some concrete dust that was getting crushed by the floors landing on top of each other as they went down. That is called pancaking by the way. And as usual, you have no idea or choose to ignore what NIST and FEMA both said about the initiator of collapse. No surprise. And once again, I have to fix your errors so that other ATS members wont get suckered into a post that is nothing more than disinfo. For the umpteenth time, FEMA has stated in its preliminary report that the CAUSE (aka INITATOR) of collapse was the failure of the floor trusses, which disconnected themselves from the exterior and interior columns, causing one floor to land on the floor below, causing THAT one to fail and fall, leaving the exterior columns unsupported and therefore subject to the greater weight and forces of the unsupported intact structure above. That was the start of the "pancake collapse" theory, which was not coined by FEMA, but rather PBS and others. The floor truss ends failed, causing the floor to fall, leaving the exterior columns unsupported, until the exterior columns could no longer hold up the weight.
NIST has found, after an in-depth investigation, that that theory was wrong. The initiator was to be discovered as the exterior columns were being pulled inward by the sagging floor trusses. This meant that the floor trusses were still connected to the exterior columns and did NOT disengage, causing a floor to fall (Pancake) on to the floor below it. The inwardly bowing columns then failed, and so started the collapse. Afterwards, the floors began to collapse and stack on top of each other all the way down, compressing themselves to a fraction of the original height. They were not, I repeat, NOT ejected outside the footprint. You have ZERO proof of this, ANOK, and you know it, while I have ample evidence of the floors stacked up inside the footprints of both towers, including pictures and firsthand accounts of workers that cut into the debris and discovered stacks of floors compressed into a fraction of their original size. Funny how you use the accounts of certain people when they agree with you pre-concieved notions of some sort of "CD" implosions or explosions, but then shun and ignore them when they say something completely different. What is found around the footprint, is the exterior columns which peeled away like a banana peel, or like an arrow that got split by another arrow. Well exterior columns and dust. But no floor trusses, steel floor pans, or slabs of concrete found outside the footprint. This claim that the mass of the towers were ejected outside the footprints is a load of garbage that was dreamed up to bolster the flawed argument of some sort of controlled demolition. But you know what happens when you build your house of sand, dont you ANOK?



To understand that, and why the collapses were different, you need to have some at least basic knowledge of engineering and physics. That is the major flaw of OS supporters. All you have is what other people are telling you, and you will accept what seems to make sense that fits your preconceived assumptions. Actually even extremely smart people do that sometimes.

Right, so says you who does not even grasp the true meaning of any of Newton's Laws, or how they are used in relation with a whole host of different scenarios. Also, I wouldnt be bragging about how much you know physics, if you cant even get the facts straight on what FEMA or NIST said, even though its right in front of you and I'm this close to using sock puppets to explain it. If you cant get the basic theory correct, how can I trust you to explain something far more complex??



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



They were not, I repeat, NOT ejected outside the footprint. You have ZERO proof of this, ANOK, and you know it, while I have ample evidence of the floors stacked up inside the footprints of both towers, including [color=limegreen]pictures and firsthand accounts of workers that cut into the debris and discovered stacks of floors compressed into a fraction of their original size.


Could you post these pictures of the pancaked floors? I've heard of the worker accounts, but I haven't heard about the actual images.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



Nobody has made the claim that after the building imploded, the walls fell in symmetrically.

ANOK, over and over and over again.

If you can find me a single example, just one example of an implosion that left the four outer walls perfectly symmetrical after the collapse, that would help your argument.

I can't but then again, I am not making that claim.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I can't but then again, I am not making that claim.
....The thing that ANOK brought up was that the walls were on the outside of the debris pile, and the rest was underneath it, a characteristic of an implosion, because the buildings core fails first allowing the building to fall inwards.

Can we agree, regardless of which wall is which or the symmetry of the rubble, that the outer walls are on top of the debris pile? Let's at least start there.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 





I can't but then again, I am not making that claim.


Fine, your claim is that two aluminum aircraft, and the kerosene they carried wiped out three steel skyscrapers and the entire WTC complex.

Prove it.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



....The thing that ANOK brought up was that the walls were on the outside of the debris pile, and the rest was underneath it, a characteristic of an implosion, because the buildings core fails first allowing the building to fall inwards.
Can we agree, regardless of which wall is which or the symmetry of the rubble, that the outer walls are on top of the debris pile? Let's at least start there.


No, sorry, but I cannot agree. The whole argument is based on the idea that ALL the exterior walls are on top of the pile - how do we know if they are any exterior wall sections below the pile or in the pile? That's why there is a request to ANOK to inventory those walls and account for all of the exterior wall sections.

Its just a simple logical slip - "I see exterior wall sections on top of debris pile, therefore all the exterior wall sections are on top of the pile".



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 




No, sorry, but I cannot agree. The whole argument is based on the idea that ALL the exterior walls are on top of the pile - how do we know if they are any exterior wall sections below the pile or in the pile? That's why there is a request to ANOK to inventory those walls and account for all of the exterior wall sections.

Its just a simple logical slip - "I see exterior wall sections on top of debris pile, therefore all the exterior wall sections are on top of the pile".


.... :shk:


Those are outer walls of the building on the debris pile. It's as clear as day, don't be stubborn now.



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

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


The central word here is not "outer" it is ALL. If not ALL the outer walls are seen in that photo then we have outer walls that may have fallen in the middle or the bottom or anywhere in between in the pile which negates the value of the argument that states "if the outer walls are on top of the pile then we have evidence of controlled demolition".



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



The central word here is not "outer" it is ALL. If not ALL the outer walls are seen in that photo then we have outer walls that may have fallen in the middle or the bottom or anywhere in between in the pile which negates the value of the argument that states "if the outer walls are on top of the pile then we have evidence of controlled demolition".


I never said can we agree that "the entire outer walls" are on top of the debris, I just wanted to at least establish the common ground that those are the outer walls that we are seeing, and not office furniture, computers, and stuff like that.

But if we can't even agree on something that simple then discussing this with you is a waste of time.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 



Fine, your claim is that two aluminum aircraft, and the kerosene they carried wiped out three steel skyscrapers and the entire WTC complex.

Prove it.


Here ya go:

wtcdata.nist.gov...

Knock yourself out.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Sure thing:



Also these:














posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by hooper
 



The central word here is not "outer" it is ALL. If not ALL the outer walls are seen in that photo then we have outer walls that may have fallen in the middle or the bottom or anywhere in between in the pile which negates the value of the argument that states "if the outer walls are on top of the pile then we have evidence of controlled demolition".


I never said can we agree that "the entire outer walls" are on top of the debris, I just wanted to at least establish the common ground that those are the outer walls that we are seeing, and not office furniture, computers, and stuff like that.

But if we can't even agree on something that simple then discussing this with you is a waste of time.


They appear to be sections of some of the outer walls - I think.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Thanks. That first photo especially looks like floors are stacked up, but it's really hard to tell which floor ends where and where the next one begins in that one as well as the other photos, it's just kind of a mushed together clump of metal and debris, you know?

But in the first one it's easy to see at least 3 floors are stacked on the bottom section that's closer to the camera, and in the top section that's further back maybe a couple floors but it's really hard to see through the mess of debris.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join