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.

 

Enough with the dishonest behaviour Truthers - I'm calling you out.

page: 39
60
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by plube

upper block apparently fall...hits lower block..


No. It hits a floor. The inertia/momentum can be transferred to the columns, but only as much as the connections from the floors to the columns can transfer.


You are not explaining the lack of the equal opposite reaction law.

When two floors collide regardless of the connections, both have the same connections, the forces on both floors and connections are equal. Floors were the same mass, the connection were the same. There is no reason the impacted floors and connections would fail, but the falling floors wouldn't. Seeing as it was 15 floors falling on 95, 15 floors already disconnected would have to not only overcome the force of the connections of the lower floors, but also the floors themselves (because the energy to eject the floors out of the footprint takes energy) pushing back equally against the force. That is simply not going to happen.

If you really think it can then put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate it.




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


your correct...and how rediculous is that...to only take the paper up the point of initiation.....and even upto the point of initian they base everything on the dislodging of the SFRM ...which they even say the SFRM out did the manufacturers guidlines...

so at this point they could not really explain the collapse...so in comes Bazants report....now if you bother to read through threads you might have already found my pictorial and analysis of the Sauret video which shows how Bazants work...FAILED.

yes i said FAILED big time....as the upper block did not even come close to completeimg the crush down phase...before crush up phase began. but i will make it esy and post it here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

now if you look into many many sites


Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou must be super-geniuses. They were able to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behavior for steel structures, and write a paper about it in just two days. 1 Their "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?-Simple Analysis" uses "Elastic Dynamic Analysis" to confidently proclaim:


SOURCE

so is Bazant the NIST fallguy.....i mean why would NIST only take it up to Initiation and not say how the collapse was to progress....I know Why.....because they couldn't.

when you have to explain the unexplainable because you are under pressure to come up with a report...by the ones who give you your paycheck...you had better say what they want you to say....I mean could you imagine if NIST had said to the Government..."ummm we feel there were other forces at play here"

A bit biased i would say....but you can listen to biased reports if it gives one a nice warm fuzzy feeling....It is kinda like a drug company saying we have a great drug for cancer.."by the way you have cancer as the doctor we employ says you do"

I think you might want a second opinion would you not?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

When two floors collide regardless of the connections, both have the same connections, the forces on both floors and connections are equal. Floors were the same mass, the connection were the same. There is no reason the impacted floors and connections would fail, but the falling floors wouldn't.


You yourself said that the top block fell. This would include core columns, mechanical equipment, and office contents.

So, let's say that the bottom floor of the falling block connections fail, along with the impacted floor. Now what happens?

Gravity still is acting on the falling block. So it will again hit a single floor. And it will fail,


Seeing as it was 15 floors falling on 95


Nope. On one. There is no load path capable of transmitting the momentum from the falling block to the columns with sufficent strength that would arrest the collapse.

And even if there was, Bazant's idealized study where the floors see no impacts, but rather ALL of the forces are resisted by the columns due to square perfect meeting of the columns, it still fails to arrest.


15 floors already disconnected would have to not only overcome the force of the connections of the lower floors, but also the floors themselves


Agree.

Momentum will be "used up" breaking the connections AND accelerating the single floors mass.

But what is being ignored is that pesky little 12' of air space between floors whereby the falling mass again is accelerated by gravity and reacquires the momentum "lost" doing the above work.


(because the energy to eject the floors out of the footprint takes energy)


You and others have been challenged to show this "ejection during the collapse progression" numerous times. You cannot.

Therefore it is a baseless statement unless your extraordinary claim is shown with overwhelming evidence. This would mean, providing stills from videos of the collapse that clearly show trusses and floor pans flying through the air.


If you really think it can then put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate it.


Like I said, you've been asked repeatedly to show this "ejection" happening in real time. To show these floor elements flying through the air. Yet you've run from it.

It's time for YOU to put your money where your mouth is, or be labelled as dishonest, or worse.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
bring up WTC building 7. post gets deleted for being off topic. lol.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

your correct...and how rediculous is that...to only take the paper up the point of initiation


It's a logical endpoint to the rational and sane.


and even upto the point of initian they base everything on the dislodging of the SFRM ...which they even say the SFRM out did the manufacturers guidlines...


Everything? Not so.

They also factor in the eccentric loading/load transfers from the plane impacts.

But you seem to question NIST's evaluation that the SFRM would be blown off.

Do you have anything other than your own personal incredulity that would cause me to question it? Any studies at all?


.now if you bother to read through threads you might have already found my pictorial and analysis of the Sauret video which shows how Bazants work...FAILED.


Oh really?

So their idealized paper, which clearly doesn't attempt to model the actual collapse progression, but rather intentionally misrepresents it in favor of collapse arrest is wrong?

LOL. Only in your misplaced beliefs....


Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou must be super-geniuses. They were able to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behavior for steel structures, and write a paper about it in just two days. 1 Their "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?-Simple Analysis" uses "Elastic Dynamic Analysis" to confidently proclaim:


No. Just experienced beyond your ability to understand, nor even to your ability to understand just how much you don't understand.


.i mean why would NIST only take it up to Initiation and not say how the collapse was to progress....I know Why.....because they couldn't.


No, like I said, cuz it's a logical endpoint for the sane and rational.


when you have to explain the unexplainable because you are under pressure to come up with a report...by the ones who give you your paycheck...you had better say what they want you to say....I mean could you imagine if NIST had said to the Government..."ummm we feel there were other forces at play here"


LOL.

Pull down your dress.

Your paranoia is showing.



I think you might want a second opinion would you not?



And there's been plenty that agree that plane impacts plus fire brought the towers down.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


how is it the upper block just magically hit the floors only...it would be columns coming down on columns...and inner core coming down on inner core if you actually believe it was a complete all round failure on all parts and the same time in order for bazants model to work....but you know what...we know that wasn't the case don't we as you can see by the tilt in the first tower that fell....then the tilt arrests.....because ummmmm...let me think....ummmm...oh right....the core just decided it was tired and could no longer support the load it had been supporting for over the last 30yrs.

You know something...NIST and Bazant have been ripped to shred...there reports have been complete and utter failures in explaining the demise of the towers....and the NIST report on Building 7...progressive collapsed on itself.

you know what...capt started this thread to call out truthers...and you know something....we have shown more on truth saide than on the OS side by a long ways.....and now your here...and rather than show anything....we are just to believe you ...because ummmm....

the second tower came pretty much...listen now.....STRAIGHT down on it self.......as you can see in the photo analysis i previously geave a link to...not floor to floor....NIST even states the pancake theory does not apply...So why would you promote it....A since NIST only took it as far as Initiation...Which you proudly stated....then this floor smashing floor theory much be your own...because even Bzanat not not use floor smashing floor...IT specifically use the upper block as the crushing force....you pick your theory....and make it good...and stop contradicting yourself with in two posts.


NOTE: can you please post your nice little term of eccentric loading/load transfer from the NIST report...

NOTE2: you didn't even bother to look at the links given to you...you keep your personal attacks to your please....as arrogance is what people use to hide their own Ignorance.



edit on 023030p://f23Friday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 023030p://f26Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
the second tower came pretty much...listen now.....STRAIGHT down on it self.......as you can see in the photo analysis i previously geave a link to...not floor to floor....NIST even states the pancake theory does not apply...So why would you promote it....A since NIST only took it as far as Initiation...Which you proudly stated....then this floor smashing floor theory much be your own...because even Bzanat not not use floor smashing floor...IT specifically use the upper block as the crushing force....you pick your theory....and make it good...and stop contradicting yourself with in two posts.


Kay, first off, "pretty much" is not straight down. This means that the vertical columns, which were designed to resist vertical force, would not be impacting each-other. This means that the horizontal columns AND the vertical columns would be falling, gaining energy through acceleration, and impacting the below floor. Now, this is not a pancake collapse because it is not simply floor-crush floor-crush floor-crush. It is a progressive collapse gaining momentum as it goes, because there is leftover energy after each destruction. In fact, some of the collapse progresses faster on the inside of the building as visible by the debris exiting windows below the exterior destruction above.

A pancake collapse implies that each floor individually crushed each floor, which is not what happened. A conglomeration of steel and concrete from various floors caused the lower floors to come apart and violently destruct. This is why you do not find floors crushed together like "pancakes."

The upper block can be used as a crushing force because it is one large weight, but it is still a single floor impacting and destroying a floor before you have the 12' of acceleration again.

Seriously, this is not difficult physics to grasp.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by vocalyolk
bring up WTC building 7. post gets deleted for being off topic. lol.


They already investigated the situation brought down by fire, case closed.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube


..NIST even states the pancake theory does not apply...then this floor smashing floor theory much be your own...



As part of the National In- stitute of Standards and Technology World Trade Center Investigation, failure modes of the connections attaching the composite floor system to the exterior wall of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were surveyed. Met- allographic analyses of intact and failed welds of the main load-bearing truss seats complemented the survey to identify the location of metallurgical failure for these connections. Above the aircraft impact floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to 85th in WTC 2), the failure modes were randomly distributed. However, over 90% of floor truss connections at or below the impact floors of both buildings were either bent downward or completely sheared from the exterior wall suggesting progres- sive overloading of the floors below the impact zone following collapse initiation of the towers ....

Immediately after collapse initiation, the potential energy of the structure (physical mass of the tower) above the impact floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to 85th in WTC 2) was re- leased, developing substantial kinetic en- ergy. The impact of this rapidly accelerat- ing mass on the floors directly below led to
overloading and subsequent failure of these floors. The additional mass of the failed floors joined that of the tower mass from above the impact area, adding to the kinetic energy impinging on the subse- quent floors. The failure of successive floors was apparent in images and videos of the towers’ collapse by the compressed air expelled outward as each floor failed and fell down onto the next. This mecha- nism appears to have continued until dust and debris obscured the view of the col- lapsing towers.



Link


edit on 16-9-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



No. Just experienced beyond your ability to understand, nor even to your ability to understand just how much you don't understand.


now you quoted an external quote here and didn't even bother to look at the source and you treid to be deceitful and state it as my own......is this the way you play games and try to misrepresent what is being stated....

I understand perfectly...and try to present sources and references to all things i post...so in the future when you quote could you say what your replying to...what was an offsite post....

now if you want to turn this into a spitting match it will not work...You do not counter with any source or evidence to back up anything you say...so therefore how can it be taken seriously.....

back up what you say...show the nist report and where you got it from....it would help.


Conclusion
Assuming the premise of the official explanation, the total collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were the largest, most unexpected, and least understood failures of engineered steel structures in the history of the world. NIST's Report, like FEMA's 2002 report, presents the appearance of explaining the collapses of the Twin Towers, but in reality it doesn't explain them at all. Flatly asserting that "global collapse" inevitably follows "collapse initiation," the Report implies that the only issue worthy of study is how the jet impacts and fires led to collapse initiation -- an issue to which it devotes well over one hundred pages. Thus, the Report makes two fundamental claims, the first explicit and the second implicit:

The impact damage and fires caused the tops of the Towers to lean and then begin to fall (collapse initiation).
Once initiated, the collapses proceeded to total collapses.

NIST goes to great lengths to support the first claim, but commits numerous omissions and distortions in the process. It remains quiet about the second claim, except for its vague rehash of the pile-driver theory. This is indefensible, given NIST's charge to investigate the collapses. Accepting that claim requires us to believe:

That the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures in history.
That those collapses were gravity-driven despite showing all the common physical features of controlled demolitions. In the cases of the Twin Towers, those features included the following:


SOURCE




edit on 023030p://f42Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





In fact, some of the collapse progresses faster on the inside of the building as visible by the debris exiting windows below the exterior destruction above.


So your saying debris inside the building is falling faster through most resistance.
And the debris outside the building is falling slower through least resistance.
You do know whats wrong with that statement dont you.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by remymartin
reply to post by Varemia
 





In fact, some of the collapse progresses faster on the inside of the building as visible by the debris exiting windows below the exterior destruction above.


So your saying debris inside the building is falling faster through most resistance.
And the debris outside the building is falling slower through least resistance.
You do know whats wrong with that statement dont you.


It is not most resistance if the outside of the building is still holding together for a second. How have you conclusively determined where the path of least resistance lay?

I mean, obviously tons of debris was ejecting through the air, where there was little to no resistance, but seriously, it couldn't all go that way. Gravity is still pulling it downward.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

how is it the upper block just magically hit the floors only...it would be columns coming down on columns...


Nope


the core just decided it was tired and could no longer support the load it had been supporting for over the last 30yrs.


No.

It received damage from the plane impacts and suffered from creep due to moderate temp, high loads.

Again, show that it isn't probable if you want to get the attention of anyone rational.


You know something...NIST and Bazant have been ripped to shred


Nope


there reports have been complete and utter failures in explaining the demise of the towers


Nope


you know what...capt started this thread to call out truthers...and you know something....we have shown more on truth saide than on the OS side by a long ways


No.

You've given your opinions on whose info is correct.

You cannot deny that there is evidence for both sides of the argument. How do you personally decide whose is right?


the second tower came pretty much...listen now.....STRAIGHT down on it self.......as you can see in the photo analysis i previously geave a link to...not floor to floor...


Nope


NIST even states the pancake theory does not apply...So why would you promote it


Because NIST in fact agrees that the collapse progressed in a "pancake-like" style. They came to this conclusion in part after examining floor connections. they found that on floors below the initiation zone, they failed due to impact from above almost exclusively. Their statement doesn't rely on anyone else's papers....

NIST DID in fact disagree with FEMA's statement that the collapse initiation was the result of floors failing in a pancake like fashion, which leads to unbraced column lengths, which results in Euler's buckling.

You've been corrected on this now. Don't repeat it again or risk being branded dishonest.


A since NIST only took it as far as Initiation...Which you proudly stated....then this floor smashing floor theory much be your own


Nope.

NIST agrees that the collapse progresses in a pancake-like fashion.

Again, you've been corrected.


.because even Bzanat not not use floor smashing floor


That's right. he uses the improbability of columns squarely impacting columns in his model, which he admits is not representative of reality, but is instead, wildly skewed in favor of collapse arrest.



NOTE: can you please post your nice little term of eccentric loading/load transfer from the NIST report.


Nope. The report is copy protected.

But it's in 1-6D


NOTE2: you didn't even bother to look at the links given to you


Sure I did. They're full of personal opinions only.

I find it unconvincing



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





mean, obviously tons of debris was ejecting through the air, where there was little to no resistance

There you go you even agree where the least resistance is.
So do you still believe debris was falling faster inside the building. ie path of most resistance



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

now you quoted an external quote here and didn't even bother to look at the source and you treid to be deceitful and state it as my own......is this the way you play games and try to misrepresent what is being stated....


It's obvious that you agree with it, yes?

Therefore it becomes nothing more than a more eloquent version of what you could produce.


I understand perfectly...


Not if you believe that the NIST report and Bazant's paper have been discredited. It shows instaed that the issue is beyond your comprehension.


You do not counter with any source or evidence to back up anything you say...so therefore how can it be taken seriously.....


I will when necessary. For example, it is now unnecessary for me to back my statement about how NIST backs a pancake-like collapse progression since waypastvne has provided it.

It's just that these issues have been discussed before, quotes like this provided by others before, and it has been handwaved away by truthers.

Why would I bother unless I get the feeling that you are a true researcher? SO far, I don't.


edit on 16-9-2011 by Joey Canoli because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Well you my friend are out of date as NIST throughout the pancake theory with the wash approximately 3yrs ago....so you might want to look that up....but i can see by your replies to people comments...your just here to stir up without any kind of presentation what so ever....no...nope...no..nope...

when you can learn to respond decently...argue with yourself.



but while your arguing with yourself....take a look.
edit on 033030p://f03Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Read waypastvne's post.

That backs my statement that NIST agrees with a pancake-like collapse progression.

I know of another.

If I provide it, will you agree that NIST backs the pancake-like collapse progression, and ALSO correct other truthers on here?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by remymartin
reply to post by Varemia
 





In fact, some of the collapse progresses faster on the inside of the building as visible by the debris exiting windows below the exterior destruction above.


So your saying debris inside the building is falling faster through most resistance.
And the debris outside the building is falling slower through least resistance.
You do know whats wrong with that statement dont you.


It is not most resistance if the outside of the building is still holding together for a second. How have you conclusively determined where the path of least resistance lay?

I mean, obviously tons of debris was ejecting through the air, where there was little to no resistance, but seriously, it couldn't all go that way. Gravity is still pulling it downward.


Yes. But the whole building did not go flying through the air, only the parts of it at the initial explosion of the jet hitting the building.

We did not see continuous ejections at each level where they say the explosives were at. We only saw one initial ejection of debris. Well to be honest, we did see ejection of debris after they fell, but that was not from explosion but of collapse.

That tells me that if there were explosive devices, those devices were only on the 10 floors that were hit. I think in most controlled demolitions, the entire buildings are set with explosives. And 10 floors of explosives are not enough for a building that size.

Larger or more complex structures can take up to six months of preparation to remove internal walls and wrap columns with fabric and fencing before firing the explosives. No one has ever reported 6 months before of any such methods.

Here is a video of a tall structure being imploded. The explosions occurred at the bottom.

www.liveleak.com...

In all controlled explosion videos, they are always empty buildings. And according to this...

science.howstuffworks.com...

In controlled demolitions, they blow up the lower floors first. We did not see that at the WTC. I agree, gravity pulls things down after the initial ejection.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by remymartin
reply to post by Varemia
 





In fact, some of the collapse progresses faster on the inside of the building as visible by the debris exiting windows below the exterior destruction above.


So your saying debris inside the building is falling faster through most resistance.
And the debris outside the building is falling slower through least resistance.
You do know whats wrong with that statement dont you.


It is not most resistance if the outside of the building is still holding together for a second. How have you conclusively determined where the path of least resistance lay?

I mean, obviously tons of debris was ejecting through the air, where there was little to no resistance, but seriously, it couldn't all go that way. Gravity is still pulling it downward.


Yes. But the whole building did not go flying through the air, only the parts of it at the initial explosion of the jet hitting the building.

We did not see continuous ejections at each level where they say the explosives were at. We only saw one initial ejection of debris. Well to be honest, we did see ejection of debris after they fell, but that was not from explosion but of collapse.

That tells me that if there were explosive devices, those devices were only on the 10 floors that were hit. I think in most controlled demolitions, the entire buildings are set with explosives. And 10 floors of explosives are not enough for a building that size.

Larger or more complex structures can take up to six months of preparation to remove internal walls and wrap columns with fabric and fencing before firing the explosives. No one has ever reported 6 months before of any such methods.

Here is a video of a tall structure being imploded. The explosions occurred at the bottom.

www.liveleak.com...

In all controlled explosion videos, they are always empty buildings. And according to this...

science.howstuffworks.com...

In controlled demolitions, they blow up the lower floors first. We did not see that at the WTC. I agree, gravity pulls things down after the initial ejection.


Unless the security company working for WTC were in on it and why would they? they're just a security company with no direct ties to the government.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


I have read it and it does not back up one thing of what you said...it is saying after the collapse and looking at the seats they were bent down.....

but you might not understand that with your limited understanding of such things...now NIST only had access to approx 2% of material from the WTC so that is 90% of 2% of the material...so ummmmm...can you now understand what they are saying....

you see using the same tactics as you here....

and the thread says we are dishonest......If i present a paper to the board of directors and said...oh sorry...but i could only base this on 2% of the materials....i would get the sack.



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join