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: 44
34
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by septic
 

so if the towers were suffering from galvanic corrosion they would have been even more susceptible to collapse the way they did. Thanks for adding that important point.


I'm asking anyone who seem to buying into that idea, and it sounds like you are lapping it up like a good OSer should when something seems to support their position. I don't see you questioning the idea, only trying to support it.

Do you think galvanic corrosion could have been a factor? I know you want it to be. If so then those questions I posed are valid and need answering. Sorry if they bust your fantasy of uncontrolled collapse with hard reality.




posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





Do you think galvanic corrosion could have been a factor? I know you want it to be


What I'm gathering is you want it not to be.



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
That supposed "debris arc" is the outer skin peeling away like a banana skin as the upper mass/core fell inside it like a wedge. In one of those videos I posted at the end you can see some of the core columns swaying and eventually falling.


Then show me all the core columns, the hat truss, the floor trusses, the floors pans, the office contents, the concrete still in the footprints. That would have been the majority of the rubble, not the outer walls as you so correctly state peeled away like a banana. I'm quite amazed you think that would happen from gravity lol.

Because if the floors are still in the footprint, as you want them to be, then the rest of the internals would be in that pile also.

You're not looking at this from any scientific angle, you're simply trying to find excuses.



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic

What I'm gathering is you want it not to be.


What kind of stupid debate is this?

Can you show evidence of this galvanic corrosion or not?

Yes or no?

People get so upset when their pet theory is questioned



edit on 10/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by septic

What I'm gathering is you want it not to be.


What kind of stupid debate is this?

Can you show evidence of this galvanic corrosion or not?

Yes or no?

People get so upset when their pet theory is questioned



edit on 10/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo


That was not part of the debate, just an observation.

I am sure whatever proof could be offered, it wouldn't be enough. However after reading the few articles mentioning the corrosion, a couple books about the history of the towers and not to mention the history of corruption within the Port Authority, the remarkably small debris pile and lack of bodies, and other anomalies, I don't consider it a pet theory but a valid hypothesis worth discussing.

I do understand that people can get so upset when their pet theories are threatened. They lash out and call the discussions "stupid debates".



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Then show me all the core columns, the hat truss, the floor trusses, the floors pans, the office contents, the concrete still in the footprints. That would have been the majority of the rubble, not the outer walls as you so correctly state peeled away like a banana. I'm quite amazed you think that would happen from gravity lol.

Because if the floors are still in the footprint, as you want them to be, then the rest of the internals would be in that pile also.

You're not looking at this from any scientific angle, you're simply trying to find excuses.


well unfortunately you and I will never see the rubble so that's moot. So far you haven't presented anything even remotely close to disproving what I've said. Did you see the video showing the core columns swaying as the dust/smoke clears and the rest of the structure is falling around it ( actually at that point it is more accurately defined as a jagged massive hulking bulk of mass). Those standing/swaying core columns prove you aren't even close to describing what happened. You think the core had to telescope down on itself and clearly that's not what happened. You are posing ideas that work to fit your conception of what you hope happened. You have to admit you don't have nearly enough data to apply physics to this AND your giving this design waaay too much credit to withstand what it went through. How were those columns still standing if the collapse happened as you believe?



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Such detail lol, you're asking me to do calculations we don't have the information to do, and all I ask is you to explain a simple physics problem.

No, chopping a tree with an axe is not what were talking about lol. Do I have to hold ya'lls hands in every step? Please try to keep it in context, because your analogies are so off the mark it's sad.

Try this, take 100 slabs of concrete and then make 20% of that pile crush the 80%. That would be a small mass trying to destroy a larger mass, and it won't work. Do you know why? Because of the equal opposite reaction law, and momentum conservation. You don't need calculations to understand that, you need to take a physics course.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! you're such a comedian!!!!!!

No I won't do your stupid slab experiment because it doesn't even come close to reproducing what unfolded at the TTs, not to mention I can't afford all that concrete. The experiment in this video is much better than anything you've come up with so far.

youtu.be...

besides you can not consider the upper section as a solid mass. It was comprised of parts that were severely damaged and as they fell they did not fall evenly or spread the load evenly or do you think it behaved like two flat blocks of concrete hitting evenly across their surfaces? You're right there's no way you can find all the data so why are you still convinced it fell like you say? And there's something you keep avoiding to explain: what was holding up the core columns that were sliced in half and left hanging by their connections to adjacent columns that were designed to hold them plumb? Once they were cut in half like a tree with an axe they weren't supporting their share of the load and now have become part of the problem. As gravity told them to fall and pull floor slabs and adjacent columns down with them those forces to the connections around them were working contrary to their design, wouldn't that squeeze the core? Of course it would but you'll say something totally unrelated because you don't want to admit you're wrong.

edit: in that video it is important t note how the model with the missing floors twisted under the weight. If the upper mass twisted from the shifting forces in the skin, floor slabs and core columns the upper structure would essentially become axes, levers, hammers, basically like a giant chainsaw coming down on top of the lower floors. You can't think of this as solid blocks impacting other solid blocks evenly balanced, plumb and level.
edit on 21-10-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by septic
 

so if the towers were suffering from galvanic corrosion they would have been even more susceptible to collapse the way they did. Thanks for adding that important point.


I'm asking anyone who seem to buying into that idea, and it sounds like you are lapping it up like a good OSer should when something seems to support their position. I don't see you questioning the idea, only trying to support it.

Do you think galvanic corrosion could have been a factor? I know you want it to be. If so then those questions I posed are valid and need answering. Sorry if they bust your fantasy of uncontrolled collapse with hard reality.


I heard about the galvanic corrosion years ago. It was between the aluminum cladding and the structural steel beams on the outside of the building. I was under the impression that the problem would be the cladding falling off. It was no threat to the structure of the building but repairing it up all sides of both buildings would be extremely expensive. Hundreds of millions of dollars. But they couldn't not repair it either. I have not seen a spec for how much a single piece of cladding weighed but I bet it was more than 100 pounds. You can't have that stuff falling off at random on windy days.

psik



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


the photo shows a louver effect. There are floors there and anyone who thinks there are no floors in those pictures is absolutely ignorant.



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by septic
 


the photo shows a louver effect. There are floors there and anyone who thinks there are no floors in those pictures is absolutely ignorant.



That louver effect works right through cubicles and office walls. In your case, ignorance is in the eye of the beholder.



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by septic
 

so if the towers were suffering from galvanic corrosion they would have been even more susceptible to collapse the way they did. Thanks for adding that important point.


I'm asking anyone who seem to buying into that idea, and it sounds like you are lapping it up like a good OSer should when something seems to support their position. I don't see you questioning the idea, only trying to support it.

Do you think galvanic corrosion could have been a factor? I know you want it to be. If so then those questions I posed are valid and need answering. Sorry if they bust your fantasy of uncontrolled collapse with hard reality.


I said IF silly, that doesn't mean it makes or breaks my ideas about the collapses it would only make your calculations even more difficult to apply real world values.



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by septic
 


the photo shows a louver effect. There are floors there and anyone who thinks there are no floors in those pictures is absolutely ignorant.



That louver effect works right through cubicles and office walls. In your case, ignorance is in the eye of the beholder.


actually it is more like a polarizing effect notice how much dimmer the sunlight is through the building. As the distance increases the light spreads out and would wash out any small details. Do you have any proof to show the interiors were walled in yet? When were these photos taken and at what stage of completion were the towers? If you can't answer those questions stop bothering me.



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
youtu.be...

notice how at 00:14 the corner of the building pulls inward.

youtu.be...

at 00:13 you can see core columns standing and swaying as the rest of the structure has fallen around it
edit on 21-10-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 

no matter what you want to believe there are floors in there in those photos



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 







actually this shows how frail the core really was, thanks!



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by septic
 

no matter what you want to believe there are floors in there in those photos


Invisible ones, through which the shoreline is visible through the fog. Pull the other one.




posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy


actually this shows how frail the core really was, thanks!


The core you can see through the invisible floors?



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic

The core you can see through the invisible floors?


you really have no idea what you are talking about. and while I'm here this video is further proof that the upper and lower floors mutually disintegrated. you can see core columns and outer skin columns still standing after the initial collapse meaning they stood up to anything above them and most likely aided in shredding the floor slabs to dust and eventually fell from swaying most likely from the debris settling at the base. there was much more than pancaking going on there was also shredding, chopping, dicing and slicing. youtu.be...

Septic old pal you really need to know that the floors are in place in those photos. You need to accept it because you're scaring me. Does anybody else around here believe those photos show the towers with no floors?
edit on 21-10-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-10-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Yes, if all else fails, change the subject and accuse someone of insanity. Check.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join