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: 37
34
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Anok, can you explain why so many core columns are outside the footprint on this picture if they telescoped straight down through themselves?

Can you show any picture at all that even remotely supports your nonsense? Where did you get that silly idea in the first place? Made it up yourself or from some silly truther site?
edit on 3-10-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


The majority of the collapse was straight down. If it wasn't then there would be obvious tilting of the whole building. Just watch the collapse PLB.

But regardless, if you want to claim that the core was ejected out of the footprint then I will agree with you, because it contradicts your previous claims, and it supports mine.

You claimed the floors stayed in their footprints in order to supply a downward force, but if the floors were not ejected out of the footprints then how did the core get ejected? Hmmmmmmm?




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by ANOK
 


You are arguing against all the physics professors in the world.
You need to accept the simple fact that you are wrong.


LOL have you seen the arguments of all the physics professors in the world?

All you are doing here is admitting you are clueless, and are simply appealing to authority.

I have no problem applying simple high school physics, thanx.

Now how about a real educated rebuttal to my claims, can you do that? Can you address the laws of motion in context with the collapses, or can you only make empty claims? What is the point of your reply, am I supposed to say, 'Oh OK sorry you must be right, your massively intellectual reply proves all my claims are nonsense, you are the master debater, I bow before your highly educated intellect'.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK and joemelon
 


-PLB- answered my question with this evidence (on the previous page)




So it seems to me that it's not a good comparison because there is not vertical resistance offered by the balcony, but -PLB- thinks this is a valid comparison so could either of you give a further explanation.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


For a start off those balconies were only connected on one side, not very securely probably. I mean they were not over engineered like the floors of the WTC, that had a much more sophisticated system of connections. There were not hundreds of connections to break.

They also landed in the their 'footprint', they weren't ejected in a 360d arc around their footprint.

What is the story behind this, who knows what condition they were in or how well they were connected etc.

This is just a stretch to compare to the WTC collapses imo.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Can you address the laws of motion in context with the collapses,



Easy to so.

The falling floors bring ~2.0Gj of energy to the first collision.

The first floor and columns can only resist with about 1.5Gj of energy equivalent.

the falling block, and the topmost floor experience equivalent impacts (equal and opposite) of the lesser amount. 1.5Gj.

SO there is extra energy left over to continue the collapse.

Truther physics questions answered and shown to not be a valid objection to the "OS".

Fail.......



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


First you claimed that floors were ejected from the collapse. But no proof.
Now you are claiming the core was ejected. Where's the proof?

Face it
You weren't there.
You are not a video analysist.
You are not a photo analysist.
You are not a structural engineer.
You are not a physics teacher of any level.

You are mearly speculating based on your own hunches.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
It is obvious, beyond question, that if GRAVITY was the only force on 9-11 we would have seen the top section that tilted continue to tilt and fall over into the street area. Gravity CANNOT account for the complete shredding of the Towers and the core steel turing to dust. DEFORMATIOn is always the result of such events, unless explosives are used. It is impossible for what we saw on 9-11 to happen without explosives of some type or several types.

Gravity CANNOt explain the " eutectic steel " and scores of other " inexplicable anomalies " that the official story drones refuse to discuss intelligently, and gravity CANNOt exxplain the temperatures needed to cause the molten steel and ground heat and after affects recorded. Gravity CANNOT explain the obvious EMP effects experienced by many rescuers and others, and it cannot be gravity that allow a smaller section to pile drive to the ground turning the structure beneath to dust and shards.

Remember when they found tiny bits of PEOPLE of the roofs of adjacent buildings not long ago? did GRAVITy hurl the blasted remains far away? Please people, at some point you are going to have to face the facts and quit trying to find some excuse for the fairy tale that is the official story...it simply is not possible under any circumstances and ONLY a complacent media keeps the charade going...along with the people who so fear the certain knowledge that our government, meaning the Cheney/Neocon cabal and their supporters, pulled 9-11 off to advance their goals. It is beyond dispute...is it beyond doubt. Facts do not lie, but perps and their cronies do.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
It is obvious, beyond question, that if GRAVITY was the only force on 9-11 we would have seen the top section that tilted continue to tilt and fall over into the street area.


Bazant dispelled this lunacy.

The columns would have sheared off at only a few degrees of raotation. After that, gravity was the only input to the upper block. gravity works in the vertical.


Gravity CANNOT account for the complete shredding of the Towers


yes it can.

You are either just unable to understand the science, or are too incredulent to believe the facts.


and the core steel turing to dust.


Delusional claim.


Gravity CANNOt explain the " eutectic steel "


Science can. And has. You are either unable to understand it or too incredulous to allow the science to sink in.


gravity CANNOt exxplain the temperatures


Science can. Stuff burning creates heat and high temps.


and it cannot be gravity that allow a smaller section to pile drive to the ground turning the structure beneath to dust and shards.


Yes it can. And has.


Remember when they found tiny bits of PEOPLE of the roofs of adjacent buildings not long ago? did GRAVITy hurl the blasted remains far away?


Momentum did. Science explains it.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by ANOK
 


First you claimed that floors were ejected from the collapse. But no proof.
Now you are claiming the core was ejected. Where's the proof?

Face it
You weren't there.
You are not a video analysist.
You are not a photo analysist.
You are not a structural engineer.
You are not a physics teacher of any level.

You are mearly speculating based on your own hunches.


You are really not paying attention.

Proof the floors were ejected is the fact that floors are not stacked up in the footprint, not only that but is was documented by FEMA...



I didn't say the core was ejected PLB did, I just agreed with him because well again, where is all the rubble?
The core is not all piled up in the footprint now is it?

You guys are so dishonest when it comes to this. If it's convenient for your argument then the core was ejected from the footprint, PLB, and when it isn't, the floors, then you contradict yourselves. You can't have it both ways.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


The floors weren't stacked because they were pulverized on the way down.
Remember it was light weight concrete not the driveway stuff.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Not the Greening nonsense again? When are you going to ever argue without appealing to authority?

Well I will just do the same...


By adopting Dr. Greening's own arguments, corrections, contentions, figures and
reasoning, the analysis once again shows that the collapse would be arrested at an early stage.
Dr. Greening has not disproved the logic and conclusions of my article, but has in fact
reinforced the most important conclusion: that collapse would have been arrested at an early
stage.
Further doubt has been cast on a gravity-driven collapse using the analysis Dr.
Greening has provided in reference to the pulverisation of the concrete. Combining this
with our knowledge of the theoretical minimum collapse time having regard only to
momentum transfer, it is shown that a collapse time of 17.5seconds, is the theoretical
minimum collapse time having regard only to the momentum transfers and the concrete
pulverisation. This timing contrarily does not take regard of the loss of effective mass that
would be present due to the pulverisation and the ejection of the concrete pieces outside the
area where they play a role in promulgating the collapse. Having regard to this and the
other energies involved, the theoretical minimum collapse time can be seen to be
approaching double that of the figures given for the collapse timing in official reports, even
with no account taken of the energy demand from the distortion and destruction wrought
to the steel superstructures.


www.journalof911studies.com...

Now, I'm not interested in a debate about other peoples work, so I will just leave it at that.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

I didn't say the core was ejected PLB did, I just agreed with him because well again, where is all the rubble?
The core is not all piled up in the footprint now is it?



This is some mighty fine trolling right here.

For months, ANOK has been asking the based on incredulity question about how could the core columns telescope down through themselves.

Now, when shown photos of the core columns outside the footprints, never misses a beat and continues his incredulity, and delusionaly makes the claim that they were ejected, when the evidence clearly shows that the "spire" core columns tipped over, and didn't "telescope".



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by ANOK
 


The floors weren't stacked because they were pulverized on the way down.
Remember it was light weight concrete not the driveway stuff.


Hmmm, so you want it both ways?

The concrete can not be pulverized, and still offer a downward force. The whole reason the concrete was ejected during the collapses was because it was pulverized.

With all that force, and all that material being moves outwards, how can you expect pulverized concrete to maintain its downwards direction and not move horizontally? When did it move horizontally? Or are you still insisting that all the building landed in its footprint?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Now, I'm not interested in a debate about other peoples work, so I will just leave it at that.


Then how about a discussion on determining a proper method of deciding whether or not the collapse should pregress or not?

Neither Greening, nor Ross, nor any other truther writing a scholatly paper attempting to debunk the collapse times uses the little things don't destroy bigger things arguement that you have spouted.

Indeed, every analysis examines the effects of a the upper stories impacting a single upper floor, and whether or not it could resist. Never is the mass of the lower 84 stories brought into the discussion. There's a reason for this which so far, has escaped you.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Or are you still insisting that all the building landed in its footprint?


Rational based arguements, backed by science and studies on the subject, would suggest that merely 1/3 of the floor concrete was lost. But none of the floor pans, nor trusses, nor core floor beams, nor the upper core columns, nor the hat truss.

Ext columns can be discarded as mass driving the evnt, as well as providing resiatance since they peeled away during the collapse.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
For months, ANOK has been asking the based on incredulity question about how could the core columns telescope down through themselves.

Now, when shown photos of the core columns outside the footprints, never misses a beat and continues his incredulity, and delusionaly makes the claim that they were ejected, when the evidence clearly shows that the "spire" core columns tipped over, and didn't "telescope".


You are contradicting your own hypothesis, and again you fail to understand the argument.

So now the core didn't telescope down, but was ejected out of the footprints? How many times have I, and others, said that very thing? You all argue the mass stayed in the footprints in order to supply the downward force.

The whole building was ejected out of the footprints, as evidenced by the post collapse pics and FEMA.

You are the ones claiming everything fell straight down into the footprint. As usual you misinterpreted my question about the core. The buildings direction of collapse was straight down, it didn't tilt in any one direction.
The buildings rubble did not land in the footprints, thus the rubble was ejected during the collapse. That, without another energy, other than gravity, is impossible.

The spire is not the core, the spire was one column.

So, now you finally admit the core was ejected out of the footprint, and thus the floors must also have been ejected out of the footprint, what caused the collapse Joey?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

So, now you finally admit the core was ejected out of the footprint, and thus the floors must also have been ejected out of the footprint, what caused the collapse Joey?



Well, since your claims about what I've said/believe are in error, I'd have to say gravity.

My explanations of where I see the mass has gone, based on science and studies, is shown in my previous post.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

The majority of the collapse was straight down. If it wasn't then there would be obvious tilting of the whole building. Just watch the collapse PLB.

But regardless, if you want to claim that the core was ejected out of the footprint then I will agree with you, because it contradicts your previous claims, and it supports mine.


Actually, in one picture we see one large section of columns tilting over and falling. I dont know how tipping over and falling down equals "being ejected" outside the footprint. The columns were freestanding and some are seen to snap and fall, with a tall section going down. Obviously, 40+ stories of freestanding columns tilting over and falling will make them fall outside the footprint. ANOK, do you use something called critical thinking? Or rational thinking? I mean, this is simple stuff using the mind to think. Think!!!



You claimed the floors stayed in their footprints in order to supply a downward force, but if the floors were not ejected out of the footprints then how did the core get ejected? Hmmmmmmm?


Once again, refer to my comment above. We see core columns that tilted over when they were left freestanding.






posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

So now the core didn't telescope down,


Exactly.


but was ejected out of the footprints?


Nope. The upper core columns stayed in the footprint and supplied mass to the collapse. The "spire" columns tipped over after the dust cleared, and didn't. But since they weren't crushed/whatever you are claining at the moment, they didn't supply much resistance either to the falling debris.


You all argue the mass stayed in the footprints in order to supply the downward force.


Any rational based study of post collapse debris says that the ext columns didn't, nor did they supply much resistance to the falling debris, since they weren't crushed, etc. Some concrete mass was indeed lost, as was fireproofing. But rational folks realize that most of the mass remained inside the footprint.


The whole building was ejected out of the footprints, as evidenced by the post collapse pics


A lie


and FEMA.


Another lie.


You are the ones claiming everything fell straight down into the footprint


Yet another lie.


As usual you misinterpreted my question about the core.


Your statements often contradict previous ones and mostly fly in the face of reality.


The buildings direction of collapse was straight down, it didn't tilt in any one direction.


Another lie.


The buildings rubble did not land in the footprints, thus the rubble was ejected during the collapse.


How much?


The spire is not the core, the spire was one column.


Yet another lie, proven false by pics posted in this very thread.


So, now you finally admit the core was ejected out of the footprint,


Obvious trolling. The upper core fell inside the footprint. The lower core columns, the "spire" tipped over.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
The majority of the collapse was straight down. If it wasn't then there would be obvious tilting of the whole building. Just watch the collapse PLB.

But regardless, if you want to claim that the core was ejected out of the footprint then I will agree with you, because it contradicts your previous claims, and it supports mine.


So you think that the majority both fell straight down and was ejected. Ever heard of cognitive dissonance?


You claimed the floors stayed in their footprints in order to supply a downward force, but if the floors were not ejected out of the footprints then how did the core get ejected? Hmmmmmmm?


The core didn't eject, that is truther fantasy. What happened is that (part of) the spire fell over like a tree, as can be seen in the image I posted in the post you replied to.




top topics



 
34
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join