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: 48
34
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


1) Damage from plane impact
2) Weakening of steel from fire
3) Uneven redistribution of loads
4) Read NIST for more information




1) Damage to core from plane impact .... MINIMUM
2) Weakening of steel from fire ...............IMPOSSIBLE
3) Uneven redistribution of loads ............DONT BE FOOLISH
4) Read NIST for more information ........ *sigh*


NIST missed out alot of evidence and openly admitted they didnt even look for evidence of explosives.
The steel was destroyed so no real investigation could take place .. and thats a crime too.


you: Minimum
me: cut in half is cut in half with nothing supporting it=not minimum

you: Impossible
me: study metallurgy

you: don't be foolish
me: don't be foolish

you: sigh
me: do your homework




posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by ANOK
 


Too bad the dust so thoroughly obscured the collapse sequence.

How could so much dust be exploding from the tops of the buildings at the very beginning of the collapse?



Well it's been listed before so let's list it again for the hard of learning all of the following could have caused dust.

Thousands of sq mtrs of sheetrock
The sprayed on fire protection
Paint
The dust that would have gathered over the years in lift shafts and other spaces.
Also concrete dust from the impacts

Do you now think you can retain that information?



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


The contents you listed would not have burst into fine dust so thoroughly, and so immediately. Closeups of the collapse show nothing but the building structural components and dust. There should also be visible office contents, plumbing fixtures, elevators, refrigerators, mainframe computers, etc.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


could you point me towards some evidence of the core being cut in half please ? i cant remember NIST mentioning that. thanks



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


The contents you listed would not have burst into fine dust so thoroughly, and so immediately. Closeups of the collapse show nothing but the building structural components and dust. There should also be visible office contents, plumbing fixtures, elevators, refrigerators, mainframe computers, etc.


How did you determine what would and would not have happened? How do you know that the listed contents do not result in the dust we can observe on video? And what according to you did cause the dust and what evidence do you have to support that theory?



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


The contents you listed would not have burst into fine dust so thoroughly, and so immediately. Closeups of the collapse show nothing but the building structural components and dust. There should also be visible office contents, plumbing fixtures, elevators, refrigerators, mainframe computers, etc.


How did you determine what would and would not have happened? How do you know that the listed contents do not result in the dust we can observe on video? And what according to you did cause the dust and what evidence do you have to support that theory?


I don't have the answers, I'm simply noticing an incredible amount of dust ejecting away from the building, when I would expect to see a mass of office furniture bathroom fixtures, generators, elevator motors and cables, people, concrete slabs, office dividers, elevator doors...the list goes on.

The dust completely obscures the building and prevents the observer from analyzing the rest of the collapse sequence.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Fire proofed steel frame high rises dont collapse due to fire .... thats why theyre used , infact thats why theyre still building them in the same way..... why arent they worrying about burning kerosene ?

The way i see it ..... the towers had explosives and incendiaries planted in the core, the planes were to give the illusion , a shock and awe tactic.... then the cores were destroyed by setting the charges off in sequence, the debri exploding from the tower , and the dust it was creating .. masked the multiple explosives planted around the perimiter walls which would be needed to get a complete collapse, which upon appearance .. to the "untrained eye" .. looked like a pancake collapse under the dust.

The way the north tower collapsed was a clear indication of the core being torn apart, and the way the south tower collapsed compared to the report .... just makes no sense at all.

And tower 7 was controlled demo , fire doesnt take out the full structre like that , the penthouse fell inside of the building. case closed.

But thats just my opinion

edit on 24-10-2011 by Tower7WTF because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Ok. But realize that expectation is not a very good advisor. It is usual in science to expect something, then do an experiment and turn out to be wrong. In this particular case actual building collapses show that production of dust clouds is to be expected. So I seems to me its time to adjust your expectations. (unless you have a good argument why your expectations are correct)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tower7WTF
Fire proofed steel frame high rises dont collapse due to fire.

But thats just my opinion


My opinion is that steel frame high rises can collapse due to fire. I don't know of any reason, rule or law that prevents this from happening.

I do however think that steel framed high rise building are designed not to collapse due to fire. Similarly like the Titanic was designed not to sink when hitting an iceberg. Or the Fukushima plant was designed not to melt down in case of an earthquake. Or the space shuttle designed not to blow up when leaving the atmosphere. Etc.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   


My opinion is that steel frame high rises can collapse due to fire. I don't know of any reason, rule or law that prevents this from happening.


Im sorry but ive never seen a steel high rise collapse due to fire, and cant find any other info on it other than the WTC , do you have links to the source of this information ?
It would help me alot . Thanks .
edit on 24-10-2011 by Tower7WTF because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by septic
 


Ok. But realize that expectation is not a very good advisor. It is usual in science to expect something, then do an experiment and turn out to be wrong. In this particular case actual building collapses show that production of dust clouds is to be expected. So I seems to me its time to adjust your expectations. (unless you have a good argument why your expectations are correct)


Spare me your condescension.

220 floors don't turn to dust, especially when filled with stuff like that shown below, except in the movies:
Source











posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by ANOK
 


Too bad the dust so thoroughly obscured the collapse sequence.

How could so much dust be exploding from the tops of the buildings at the very beginning of the collapse?



Well it's been listed before so let's list it again for the hard of learning all of the following could have caused dust.

Thousands of sq mtrs of sheetrock
The sprayed on fire protection
Paint
The dust that would have gathered over the years in lift shafts and other spaces.
Also concrete dust from the impacts

Do you now think you can retain that information?


LOL do you really think there was that much sheetrock, paint (?lol), to make all that dust that covered lower Manhattan?

Sorry not buying mate.



The dust was analyzed and found to be concrete, aluminum and iron particles, Human body parts, office furniture, in fact everything that was in the building.

911blogger.com...

Your disinformation is not worth retaining.


edit on 10/24/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
It should be obvious then that the core which was holding the antenna must have been blown first, as would occur with any demolition.

The dust I was referring to was that which cascaded down as soon as the top section collapsed. It seems like an inordinately huge amount.


I hear ya, sorry mate I misunderstood your point. Sometimes it's hard to tell if a post is supporting the OS, or controlled demo. I thought the former with your post for some reason. I now see my mistake.

I thought you were trying to say, how can I tell when is it obscured by dust, a point OSers have tried to used in the past. Yes you are right that is a huge amount of dust when the collapse starts, it was all sheetrock you know lol?



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Tower7WTF
 


I don't know of this ever happening before, for example a high rise fire being unattained for over 6 hours. Just to point out a fallacy here:hasty generalization. Simply put, there are not enough samples of high rise building fires in order to make any statement about it. And even if there are, inductive reasoning is still inconclusive. From inductive reasoning, the Concorde could not crash. Until it did.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by septic
 


Ok. But realize that expectation is not a very good advisor. It is usual in science to expect something, then do an experiment and turn out to be wrong. In this particular case actual building collapses show that production of dust clouds is to be expected. So I seems to me its time to adjust your expectations. (unless you have a good argument why your expectations are correct)


Says the person who expects the concrete floors to stay whole while crushing other floors and office furniture, aluminum, iron, body parts, etc., etc., ect...

Get real, the dust was full of concrete, the floors were not piled up in the footprints. You keep asking if I can do maths, well I can do this one 2+2. Can you?



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


I hear ya, sorry mate I misunderstood your point. Sometimes it's hard to tell if a post is supporting the OS, or controlled demo. I thought the former with your post for some reason. I now see my mistake.

I thought you were trying to say, how can I tell when is it obscured by dust, a point OSers have tried to used in the past. Yes you are right that is a huge amount of dust when the collapse starts, it was all sheetrock you know lol?


I hear you, mea culpa as well.

The dust has puzzled me for some time. The easiest explanation I can come up with is the wackiest, but sheetrock ain't it.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

LOL do you really think there was that much sheetrock, paint (?lol), to make all that dust that covered lower Manhattan?



The total volume of fireproofing would be very close to the volume concrete in the buildings. Fireproofing turns to dust very easily.

After the first plane crash and before the collapse, there was already a layer of dust on the ground where the fireproofing knocked off by the plane. Everything below the red arrows is fire proofing dust, We know it's not smoke because smoke doesn't just fall to the ground and lay there.




posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Says the person who expects the concrete floors to stay whole while crushing other floors and office furniture, aluminum, iron, body parts, etc., etc., ect...


Ehm, care to provide a quote where I say this? hint: it does not exist.


Get real, the dust was full of concrete, the floors were not piled up in the footprints. You keep asking if I can do maths, well I can do this one 2+2. Can you?


Sure, the floors were destroyed when they hit each other. The difference in our position is that you think that the mass of the floors disapeared after they broke into pieces, and I don't.

Not the first time I write this by the way.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


Ok, but I do not believe the floors turned to dust. I believe that only part of the concrete, fireproofing and other stuff turned to dust. When something turns to dust, its volume increases significantly.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

the Concorde could not crash. Until it did.


But how does that support the OS ? "the Concorde could not crash. Until it did"

Thats like saying .... this brick wont fall ... untill i drop it.

It takes heat burning kerosene wont reach to effect a structure like wtc 1 + 2 ... even tower 7.







 
34
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join