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.
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)
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.
Originally posted by ANOK
Can you address the laws of motion in context with the collapses,
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.
Gravity CANNOT account for the complete shredding of the Towers
and the core steel turing to dust.
Gravity CANNOt explain the " eutectic steel "
gravity CANNOt exxplain the temperatures
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by ANOK
Now, I'm not interested in a debate about other peoples work, so I will just leave it at that.
Originally posted by ANOK
Or are you still insisting that all the building landed in its footprint?
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".
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?
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.
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?
Originally posted by ANOK
So now the core didn't telescope down,
but was ejected out of the footprints?
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.
The spire is not the core, the spire was one column.
So, now you finally admit the core was ejected out of the footprint,
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.
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?