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.

 

Regardless of your opinions of 9/11 , you need to read this.

page: 13
33
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elbereth
reply to post by galdur
 


It is my understanding that wind-loads are the single biggest force expected to affect structures such as these. An architect friend of mine once told me in response to a question I had about the high rises in downtown LA surviving an earthquake that they were automatically strong enough to survive any foreseeable seismic event due to the strength already built into them required to handle wind-loading. I admit this is anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt or some quick Googling.
edit on 24-8-2011 by Elbereth because: typo



A bit of advice , I suggest you hang around your Architect friend and learn as much as possible about Design/Construction. Just learn , don't lean on faith so much.




posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I don´t understand your points. When you look at pictures of the twin towers you see a fortress of windows maybe 3 feet across, That´s how massive this structure was - understandably since it stood 1300 feet. I remember stories from the nineties from people that were uncomfortable working in these towers because they could hardly look out, the beams and thus the windows were so closely spaced.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by tpg65
 


What if you found the hard evidence..? What will be your (our) next step....?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
do you guys realize that the buildings had 47 separate, steel vertical columns that made up the core (middle), and you say that these were marginalized by the fires....even if every single one of them were marginalized in the exact same spot somewhere at the top of the building, they would not fall into themselves, they would bend in one direction....they wouldn't have been all melted all the way down, so they would have retained their strength.......there would have still been columns sticking straight up, the building wouldn't fall at near free fall speed....the floors were strong enough to hold the weight of the other floors above them or they wouldn't have held for all these years, plus, most of the weight was blasted away from the building as it was collapsing which would have resulted in less weight than the actual building was before it collapsed, which the lower floors would have been able to accommodate easily, since they accommodated much more weight before hand.......



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by martiendejong





Do you know Brent Blanchard is sponsored by the government? Yes he is.


Do you blindly believe what your government tells you ? Yes you do.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


Contentless post not identifying any argument,



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by zatara
reply to post by tpg65
 


What if you found the hard evidence..? What will be your (our) next step....?



Hard evidence is yourself learning instead blindly accepting someone else's artificial production of how they think how went down. Learn for yourself . That's hard evidence.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


Fundamental of Construction or Fundamentals of Physics? Which is it.

Yankee451,

As far as the media, they were bought and sold in 1963....to me, the WTC argument is disinfo and Jones is a major proponent. The government pays people to protest, play up the conspiracy and to keep people looking and complaining about something that can never be found. It is the perfect conspiracy.


To the OP,

On the other hand, 93 and no eyewitnesses. You would have, at most, 5-10 people involved in the shoot down of 93 including pilot, ground, FAA and NORAD communications. Add Cheney and Mineta, the man who testified about the shoot down. Now, how many do we need to wire three buildings...but not the other four...risk flying planes into them( what if they fought back like 93?) and if the planes did not hit, how the hell could they explain that Al Qeada wired up the WTC and shot a cruise missile into the Pentagon. Think it out. All of you talk about outside of the box thinking and all I am trying to do in these forums is say move on and find the real conspriacy.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 





Yankee451, As far as the media, they were bought and sold in 1963....to me, the WTC argument is disinfo and Jones is a major proponent. The government pays people to protest, play up the conspiracy and to keep people looking and complaining about something that can never be found. It is the perfect conspiracy.


Is that a fancy way of saying you don't want to collaborate with me? I provided four examples of fraudulent images that were passed off as real, so I'm not sure how you see that as a perfect conspiracy...looks downright sloppy to me.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by dilly1
 


Contentless post not identifying any argument,



Arguments against whom? Are you a truther or a retard? You either know by investigating and acquiring independent knowledge or you dependently don't, cause you choose instead to believe in faith. Its really that simple.


Well what is it?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


Expert opinion is not the same thing as faith. If I was inclined to lean on faith I would surely be an OSer.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dilly1

Originally posted by zatara
reply to post by tpg65
 


What if you found the hard evidence..? What will be your (our) next step....?



Hard evidence is yourself learning instead blindly accepting someone else's artificial production of how they think how went down. Learn for yourself . That's hard evidence.




show me something on how the steel vertical columns collapsed into themselves....this is my challenge to you, are you up to it?



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


Explain how reinforced buildings are supposed to fall through themselves at virtually no resistance in a gravity driven event. Explain ho an airliner landed at Pentagon at 530 mph. Identify arguments.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by zatara
 





What if you found the hard evidence..? What will be your (our) next step....?


My first step was to turn off the TV.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by galdur
 


Yes, and how can asymmetrical damage result in symmetrical collapses? My god, it is right there in front of the whole world's eyes. Have they got us all hypnotized?
edit on 24-8-2011 by Elbereth because: typo



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by dilly1
 


Explain how reinforced buildings are supposed to fall through themselves at virtually no resistance in a gravity driven event. Explain ho an airliner landed at Pentagon at 530 mph. Identify arguments.



Dude what's wrong with you . How could you think I am a debunker?


I am the only one here who is apparently knowledgeable on construction.

Its really very simple:

2 planes weighing 116 tons each carrying 23k gallons of fuel CANNOT pulverize 1,200,000tons of mild steel and concrete 10kpsi(core and foundation)(floors were standard 4kpsi); all on one day. IT DOESNT HAPPEN .


The 1,200,000 tons is all three towers combined.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 





IT DOESNT HAPPEN .


Only in the movies.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
It should be very obvious to most people of common sense that when you have a skyscraper of 1300 feet, you have the more resistance to the force of gravity the closer to ground you get. So, you have this structure light at the top and progressively stronger down. Any notion that a lighter mass from the top would somehow press down increasing resistance from below in a gravity driven event is thus in effect total bunk.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
It should be very obvious to most people of common sense that when you have a skyscraper of 1300 feet, you have the more resistance to the force of gravity the closer to ground you get. So, you have this structure light at the top and progressively stronger down. Any notion that a lighter mass from the top would somehow press down increasing resistance from below in a gravity driven event is thus in effect total bunk.



exactly, then when you bring into the equation, the factor of most of the debris that would have been responsible for weight was blown out sideways...therefore creating less downward weight than before the collapse.....



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by galdur
It should be very obvious to most people of common sense that when you have a skyscraper of 1300 feet, you have the more resistance to the force of gravity the closer to ground you get. So, you have this structure light at the top and progressively stronger down. Any notion that a lighter mass from the top would somehow press down increasing resistance from below in a gravity driven event is thus in effect total bunk.



Thank you!!!!!! Welcome to the normal world. Jesus , you had me there for a second you were a "retard debunker".


Now repeat that over and over to hooper and the annoying cat guy when they derail,,, I'm mean post.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join