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.

 

Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

page: 25
34
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01

Can you please stop posting this idiotic image!



That's odd, you never complain when Anok post this idiotic picture and claims WTC 7 fell into its own footprint.

It's clear to see that clean up has already begun and all the debris has been cleared off the street to access ground zero, so all the building that was in the street is gone.



As to the picture I posted, You are correct it is well into the clean up and a lot of the pancake pile has been removed. But it does give us a good view of the remaining pancaked floors after the parameter walls have been removed.

This photo will give you a better view of just how large the pancake pile was.



And for a scale reference I enlarged the men in the photo, Do you still think the pancake pile was one story tall ?





posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Okay, so the basement floors were destroyed, but I am not seeing any pancakes in there...

The top of that rubble there is just about at ground level, for scale.




That is the first floor up, and a lot of debris is in the basement.


One floor above. That's about what it looks like to me, it appears to come to the level of the walkway in the lobby.

The basement was about half-again as deep as the lobby was tall.

There is rubble, but pancakes down there.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Okay, so the basement floors were destroyed, but I am not seeing any pancakes in there...

The top of that rubble there is just about at ground level, for scale.


Try to argue with someone that cant grasp the concept of "collapsing in its own footprint" is like beating the water, it will just get you tired. So 110 stories compressed into 3-5 max, and you still call that part of the OS? Were are the floor asemblies? The loose trusses? None of that? Sad, in this case hilarious, but sad nonetheless.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Could you explain how the building turned to dust according to the physics of the OS for me please.



Ohhh Ohh!! I know I know!! Crushed drywall and sheetrock!!! That was a big source of dust. Ever see what they partition the offices with? Or what they wrapped the core's columns with? And the elevator shafts and stairwells!



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

First off when did I say 'the towers turned to dust'?

But the problem is there are no floors stacked up in the footprints of the towers, as there should be for your claims to be true. You can't show the floors, you can't account for the floors.



BULL PLOP!! Grade A, 100% Bull, ANOK. I, along with others have shown you time and again, pictures of the compressed floors, pictures from the footprint of the floors stacked up, OH and first hand accounts from the guys that actually got to cut into the mass in the footprint and see how 10-15 floors got compressed into a few feet. Dont come here and LIE about it ANOK. You are basically LYING. I know you are not misinformed, or dont have the facts. You are blatantly LYING. The floors were there, inside the footprint. Workers saw what happens when floors got compressed, AND you were shown pictures. Enough with the lies ANOK. So far, you have lied about floors being ejected outside the footprint. You lied about what NIST stated about "pancake collapse". You lied about how the laws of physics were broken. I mean seriously, when does it stop? Normally I dont call people out, but you have taken the cake. You have been corrected time and again, and yet you insist on continuing with the bad information and lies. Why is that?



So if the floors are not in the footprint post collapse, then the only logical conclusion is they were lost during the collapse. There is no other alternative.


Bull plop once again. Its starting to smell in here. Someone open a window. See above




And once again for the billionth time, the point you are trying so desperately to distract away from, if you are losing mass during the collapse then you are losing mass you need to cause other floors connections to fail. Let alone move all the debris outside of the footprints.


edit on 9/20/2011 by ANOK because: typo


And for the trillionth time, show us the evidence of floors being ejected outside the footprint during collapse. Show me in ONE frame during the collapse of a section of floor pan with concrete being ejected out, or floor trusses attached to floor pans. Just ONE. I know you cant ANOK, that is why I say, nay, KNOW, you are lying. Lying to prop up another lie. You have zero evidence of what you claim, base it off something you pulled from the netherworld, and use it prop up something that didnt happen. So now, you are just lying. Making stuff up to prop up something else that you made up.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
I admit that I have looked but I cannot see where this 'ejection of material' is. There's no need for outside energy to explain what's not there. Simple as that. People in this thread have already answered the questions yet it goes on and on because these people don't want facts.

Hijackers took down these buildings. That's what happened. Are deniers afraid? My guess is that they do not want to legitimize the fears and wars. They're so adamant. They reject the evidence because it does not support their anti-war or anti-US prejudices.

Maybe they're trying to remove themselves of any responsibility post-9/11.
edit on 21-9-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01


The basement was about half-again as deep as the lobby was tall.



I took a screen shot of your side view plan and placed a red arrow at the average height of the pancake pile.



With the scale of the building being 200+ feet across, the arrow would be over 100 feet to the bottom of the basement. That would mean an average compression of one foot per floor. The concrete floors were only 4.5" thick.

What do you think that 100'+ deep pile of debris is made of ?

The floors are in the footprint.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by wmd_2008
 




This is a structure if one part fails it can cause other parts to fail this was a TOTALLY CHAOTIC SYSTEM you cant MODEL IT !!!


en.wikipedia.org...(insurance)
aesop.doc.ic.ac.uk...
books.google.com.ng...


Of course you can model chaotic systems, what do you think the gas laws are all about?

You can't make an empirically validity stochastic model behave the you do of course, but that isn't the fault of empiricism or modelling, just with your notion of how such systems behave.


OK I will add a missing word

This is a structure if one part fails it can cause other parts to fail this was a TOTALLY CHAOTIC SYSTEM you cant MODEL IT ACCURATELY.

There are THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF INTERACTIONS DURING THIS EVENT we don't know exactly what damage was caused by the impact, the fuel explosion and then the fires THAT WAS THE POINT I was trying to put across!!!



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by waypastvne
Fireproofing (the stuff that actually does turn to dust very easily) turned to dust.


Fireproofing is not going to make this much dust...



How much fireproofing do you think was in those towers?





And if you are observant it's not only 'dust', it is full of larger chunks of debris, including concrete floors, unless you can show me otherwise i.e. concrete and steel panned floors stacked up in the footprints.


edit on 9/20/2011 by ANOK because: typo


How do you KNOW how much dust any of the items would make since day one you seemed to have ignored the fact that the SHEETROCK,SPRAYED ON FIRE PROOFING EVEN PAINT will create dust and all you ever mentioned like all your kind was concrete!!! OH and STEEL
even although you see the steel everywhere!!!!



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
ANOK you always give me a


So lets see some pics of these 1 acre in area floorslabs being ejected or even better
some video.

Or point out the top 15 or so floorslabs being ejected on this video?



In fact go to 1:38 or 2:10(closer view) or 2:40 (even closer) and watch how the
wall gives way with no sign of any explosion and a nice fire burning away
below the position that the wall buckles!

Or how about giving us some estimate of the amount of explosive required to eject
the 700 tons of floorslab? FOR EACH FLOOR?

Like I have said to you before many many times do you expect to see a neat pile of
floorslabs all lying on top on each other?

I mean some would have fallen 1300+ feet

Just to jog your memory even if the concrete was stacked neatly on top of each other
UNDAMAGED it would only be 40 feet high!

You have been given links before to pictures of piles of debris at the site but of
course you then make up excuses about those as well!

edit on 21-9-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66


Yes, resistance is lower than the gravitational force (when something starts to fall). The top section was effected by both, resistance and the gravitational down force.

Resistance is what the top section encountered from a stationary position and all the way to the ground. At stationary (before the top section falls), the resistance of the bottom section is greater than the down force (gravity) working on the top section. The resistance was greater than gravity working on the top section until the top section of the building started to move down words.

The issue is that the top section fell like there was no resistance working against gravity. Both towers fell down in its own footprint symmetrically.


There was resistance. That is why the top section did not fall as fast as it would in free fall. So there isn't an issue here.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by spy66


Yes, resistance is lower than the gravitational force (when something starts to fall). The top section was effected by both, resistance and the gravitational down force.

Resistance is what the top section encountered from a stationary position and all the way to the ground. At stationary (before the top section falls), the resistance of the bottom section is greater than the down force (gravity) working on the top section. The resistance was greater than gravity working on the top section until the top section of the building started to move down words.

The issue is that the top section fell like there was no resistance working against gravity. Both towers fell down in its own footprint symmetrically.


There was resistance. That is why the top section did not fall as fast as it would in free fall. So there isn't an issue here.


If you think the floors pancaked to the ground a head of the falling vertical support structure, Or at that the floors and the vertical support structure collapsed at the same time. You have a big issue with explaining the lack of resistance do to acceleration/fall time.

1. If the floors grave away and pancaked before the core and the walls. The floors must have fallen without resistance.

2. If the floors, the vertical support structure and walls collapsed at the same time. That means the structure was in tacked when the top section fell on the bottom section. The bottom section would have put up a lot more resistance and the acceleration speed from the top would not increase.

You must be viewing the whole integrity of the structure all wrong if you think the bottom section could give away this easy.

Or people imagine that falling "debris" from the top section acts as one large mass pushing against the bottom section at once!



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
If you think the floors pancaked to the ground a head of the falling vertical support structure, Or at that the floors and the vertical support structure collapsed at the same time. You have a big issue with explaining the lack of resistance do to acceleration/fall time.

1. If the floors grave away and pancaked before the core and the walls. The floors must have fallen without resistance.


There was resistance, we know that for fact. Maybe you can explain why you think the floors must have fallen without resistance?


2. If the floors, the vertical support structure and walls collapsed at the same time. That means the structure was in tacked when the top section fell on the bottom section. The bottom section would have put up a lot more resistance and the acceleration speed from the top would not increase.


That is not what evidence is showing. Like I pointed out, video evidence shows that the failure of at least part of the core and perimeter columns was lagging the collapse front.


You must be viewing the whole integrity of the structure all wrong if you think the bottom section could give away this easy.

Or people imagine that falling "debris" from the top section acts as one large mass pushing against the bottom section at once!


Why am I viewing it wrong? I can explain why it gave away. And it all makes sense. The floors were never designed to carry the weight of the top section.That was the job of the support columns. Add to that the dynamic load as result of the top section gaining momentum, and the floors have absolutely no chance. It is simple a matter of load capacity of the floors and the applied load. If you look at the numbers, there is no other conclusion than failure.

So if you are right, the floors should be able to hold that weight. Can you demonstrate on what exactly you base that?



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Quote from you 'There was resistance. That is why the top section did not fall as fast as it would in free fall. So there isn't an issue here.'

That is the only issue to my mind, there was resistance but it was far far less that it should have been, other wise 1/3 of the building crushed the other 2/3s and from what I've learned that cannot happen, and as Sherlock Holmes says When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

Then again I am not an expert.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Quote from you 'There was resistance. That is why the top section did not fall as fast as it would in free fall. So there isn't an issue here.'

That is the only issue to my mind, there was resistance but it was far far less that it should have been, other wise 1/3 of the building crushed the other 2/3s and from what I've learned that cannot happen, and as Sherlock Holmes says When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth

Then again I am not an expert.


How did you come to the conclusion that the resistance was far less than it should be? What, according to you, should the resistance have been, and what was the actual resistance? How did you come to these values?



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 






So if you are right, the floors should be able to hold that weight. Can you demonstrate on what exactly you base that?


That is not what i am saying at all.

Each floor section is bolted to multiple places to the core and to the walls. Each floor (element) had additional cement and iron mats laid out on top of it, tying each floor section together. Tying the floor sections together gives the floors a hell of a lot more tolerance to support weight. Thus give greater resistance.






edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I don't see how a stronger floor adds to the load capacity when you don't make the connections stronger. The floor connections are the weak link here, and their load capacity was exceeded multiple times when the top section fell.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66


Each floor section is bolted to multiple places to the core and to the walls. Each floor (element) had additional cement and iron mats laid out on top of it, tying each floor section together. Tying the floor sections together gives the floors a hell of a lot more tolerance to support weight. Thus give greater resistance.



That would give torsional strength to the building. It would add nothing to the amount of weight the truss seats could support.



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by spy66
 


I don't see how a stronger floor adds to the load capacity when you don't make the connections stronger. The floor connections are the weak link here, and their load capacity was exceeded multiple times when the top section fell.


I know you dont. Because you don't understand that if you have the floor sections tied together with cement and iron mats/netting, you have more connection points. More connection points makes the floors more weight tolerant. And cement with iron mats/netting makes the floor sections a lot stronger. Because they share more connection points.

I also have to add. Between Zone 1 and 2 there where large steal beams tided to the core and to the walls.

Each tower was built in three section called Zones.

There was so much resistance in this building that your theory is dead. Just look a the damn core. No way the top section would plow that to the ground.

www.youtube.com...







edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
I know you dont. Because you don't understand that if you have the floor sections tied together with cement and iron mats/netting, you have more connection points. More connection points makes the floors more weight tolerant. And cement with iron mats/netting makes the floor sections a lot stronger. Because they share more connection points.


That is simply not correct. When the connection is capable of holding for example a load of 1000N, then the connection will fail whenever that load is exceeded. It does not matter what shape or strength the load has or what material it is made of. The number of connection points does not increase the number of actual connections. It is the number of connection that determined the load capacity, not the number of possible connections.


I also have to add. Between Zone 1 and 2 there where large steal beams tided to the core and to the walls.

Each tower was built in three section called Zones.

There was so much resistance in this building that your theory is dead. Just look a the damn core. No way the top section would plow that to the ground.


The question remains, on what exactly do you base the assertion that the resistance was too great?




top topics



 
34
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join