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: 51
34
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tower7WTF
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
www.youtube.com...

At 2:40 it discusses the core columns. Not the entire core was sliced but even a small portion would qualify as more than minimum damage. Coupled with 85% of one side of the building's supporting skin columns cut in half would create a massively unbalanced load on the rest of the building. It's perfectly reasonable that it would happen the way it did. Besides just the damage from the planes would condemn the buildings requiring them to come down. Wouldn't it have been better for the govt to have like Haliburton bid on the deconstruction? Did the govt still benefit from this? yes in my opinion. Are there evil elements of our govt? yes I believe so. Did the cia turn OBL into a Manchurian candidate and pull this off? very well maybe so. Did the govt use thermite and explosives to bring down the sections of the towers above the random impact zones? highly unlikely in my reasoning. Did the govt use holograms to simulate the planes? I don't believe that.
edit on 24-10-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

the loads were so unbalanced it would only have to WEAKEN one crucial section to tip the scales. You guys forget the buildings had substantial damage to the skin and core already, both being crucial elements of the design. It wouldn't take much to pass the tipping point towards total failure like the Titanic.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 09:38 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?

They use the word exploding a lot. The same thing that made the dust blow out the lower windows that they call cd explosions is what they are trying to describe as exploding out the roof. They're trying to build this up more than it needs to be. Some of them talk about Occam's Razor yet they don't realize the simplest explanation is that the upper section fell and mutually destroyed the lower section. It wasn't two smooth flat surfaces impacting each other evenly and balanced. They also talk a lot about the floor slabs yet they deny the impact the heavy columns and supporting structures would have on that concrete. They also talk about steel beams exploding and being ejected further away than they should but they fail to recognize what they are seeing is the stainless steel outer skin that was clad over the ugly old skin columns as they fluttered through the air. At one point right after the main mass has fallen and the dust moves away you can see tall sections of outer skin columns and core columns swaying and eventually falling totally disproving the crush down theory as demonstrated using wooden blocks.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 09:41 PM
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.


"there should be" this and that



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tower7WTF
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)


So it just so happens that they knew in advance which of the surrounding buildings would have substantially enough damage that it would "look" good enough to "pull" with previously rigged explosives? I wonder if they rigged any other buildings in lower Manhatten, but it's just that they weren't damaged enough to make it look realistic if they cd it? THAT building was previously rigged knowing in advance it would be damaged from falling debris? That's monumentally stupid in its reasoning. Why don't we see or hear explosive charges going off? Is this some new kind of explosive that doesn't make any noise?
edit on 24-10-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic

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















What does this theory add to whether or not the upper section could destroy the lower one? Are you saying the buildings were actually holograms?



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

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?


Why are you running away from the fact that parts of the core and outer skin can be seen still standing and swaying after the initial collapse? I know why because it crushes your crush down hypothesis.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

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?


says the person who conveniently ignores the impact the steel columns would have as hammers, axes, levers, etc. chopping, slicing, dicing....



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tower7WTF
..... a highrise building is a professionally constructed solid structure.


I think this is where some peoples' conjecture falls apart: the buildings were not solid structures. They were not two smooth blocks of wood hitting each other. They were built with concrete and steel components and every time steel hit concrete the concrete lost.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by -PLB-
 


There is a difference that a layman woulnd't understand.

The mesh of the towers is a known entity, a known design type that would not fail from a hole being punched through it.

I think someone could safely say if you made a huge hole in a chain link fence, the fence would not collapse. Do you agree, or do you think that no one can make that claim until you see it?

Saying the Concorde would not crash, or the Titanic would not sink, isn't even in the same ballpark. Planes crash, boats sink, chain link fences do not collapse from holes punched in them. Known events PLB predict future events.


There's no way you can say the damage to those buildings would not lead to the upper sections failing. Not physics that's for damn sure so that puts you right down to Earth with the rest of us. How did those tall swaying skin and core columns withstand the collapse as long as they did? Maybe it was angels holding them up?
edit on 24-10-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK


I think someone could safely say if you made a huge hole in a chain link fence, the fence would not collapse.


No, It collapses. Just like the buildings.


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


don't expect a reply. Anok will focus on something easier. Great find!



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Tower7WTF
 


Hehe they love to throw out words like 'mild', 'lightweight', etc., as if they mean they are somehow inadequate.

They fail to realize those terms are relative, and not literal in the way they want to portray them.

They also fail to realize certain structures can be very strong simply from their design, regardless of what it's made of. They want to believe the towers were like Jenga blocks lol.


here he goes with the wooden blocks again!!!!!



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





What does this theory add to whether or not the upper section could destroy the lower one? Are you saying the buildings were actually holograms?


What I am saying is how could 220 floors containing items such as in the images simply turn to dust. I believe the dust was a distraction; a literal smokescreen to disguise the fact that the contents that should have been there, were not.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

here he goes with the wooden blocks again!!!!!


What are you talking about, when have I ever talked about wooden blocks before?

You're another poster who can't read, just making stuff up.

The OS supporters are the ones who always bring up jenga blocks, not me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
don't expect a reply. Anok will focus on something easier. Great find!


More proof you don't read posts. I already replied to that.


Go look, and read.


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



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I have been reading your posts long enough now to fully understand what you comprehend and what you don't.
You don't even realise that when I ask you certain questions, that you refuse to answer, you completely expose yourself.


Typical truther logic, Not long ago I asked you what 2+5/2 is. You did not answer. So you do not understand extremely simple math. By the way, in your last attempt to "expose" me, I answered your silly irrelevant questions. Of course you ignored that completely.

Again I dare you. Show a single quote where I am wrong about physics. Do you still think that top didn''t have potential energy when it was still connected to the lower part of the building?


There is nothing wrong with that statement. Yes I said it and I'll say it again. It might not be the best way to express the equal opposite reaction law, but it is still technically correct.


No it is not. It is nonsense. The fact that you do no realize it is nonsense show you really do no understand the physics. It was not just a slip of tongue


No, I was making an analogy about your claims of what people said about Concorde and the Titanic. I am not being dishonest, you misinterpreted what I said from the beginning. Why am I getting Déjà vu here PLB, this is not the first time a long discussion with you started with you completely missing my point, and me trying to explain it while you continue to twist what I said.


So what was your point exactly. Lets see how you weasel yourself out of this.


You can't read it and figure it out?


Your nonsense is incomprehensible. Explain it.


Oh yes you would love to remove the evidence that you completely misunderstood my point. In fact you are simply trying to defuse my point by pretending not to understand, you've done this many times PLB.

And yes you lied, the towers were not on fire for hours. You said the planes made the towers collapse.


I did not say the planes made the tower collapse. Work on your reading comprehension skill a bit harder, you still do not understand very simple English. When I say something, I usually try to use the correct terms to express myself. And according to me, the planes are by far the most likely cause of the collapses. If you think there is any lie in that sentence work harder on your reading comprehension skills.

So what do you think about false accusations? Saying someone is lying while he is not? You think that is perfectly acceptable behavior? Anything goes for your cause?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
don't expect a reply. Anok will focus on something easier. Great find!


More proof you don't read posts. I already replied to that.


Go look, and read.


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


More proof you conveniently ignore the more substantial posts and choose instead to quibble over minutiae. Why are you ignoring the core and skin columns that were still standing after the rest had collapsed? No explanation for them that's why. They don't fit into your whacked out concept of what happened. Come on tough guy what about them?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Oh yes you would love to remove the evidence that you completely misunderstood my point. In fact you are simply trying to defuse my point by pretending not to understand, you've done this many times PLB.


You on the other hand not only pretend to not understand but you argue over the smallest, stupidest details and then completely ignore when someone presents something you have absolutely no explanation for. You're putting up a facade that's about as transparent as a chain link fence.

Why are you ignoring the FACT that sections of the core and outer skin were still standing and swaying as the rest of the debris settled at the bottom? I know why. It's ok though, you can keep on pretending you have your head wrapped around this if it makes you feel like a big smart man. The fact remains this bit of detail throws your ideas out the window. Keep flailing it's funny to watch.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




Originally posted by ANOK

....... Planes impact did not effect the buildings integrity, even NIST admitted that much. Have your forgotten already what your precious OS actually states? Why do you need to lie LPB?



Hold on here- The planes didn't affect the buildings integrity?? Do you really believe that?

And when did the NIST admit that the planes didn't at all affect the buildings integrity?? That's one of the key elements to their report on the probable cause of collapse. Please provide a source. I've looked, but can't find where they've "admitted" that, except for the few conspiracy sites that state it is fact...

From my understanding the report seems to find that the planes DID affect the integrity.

Just a few instances:


NIST-NCSTAR 1-6, xxxvii-
Events that played a significant role in the structural performance of the towers were the aircraft impact, rapid ignition of fire on multiple floors, and the growth and spread of fire in each tower


From the section titled: Probable Collapse Sequences:

Finding 50: The core columns were weakened significantly by the aircraft impact damage and thermal effects. Thermal effects dominated the weakening of WTC 1. As the fires moved from the north to the south side of the core, following the debris damage path, the core was weakened over time by significant creep strains on the south side of the core. Aircraft impact damage dominated the weakening of WTC 2. Immediately after impact, the vertical displacement at the southeast corner of the core increased 6 in. (from 4 in. to 10 in.).



NIST-NCSTAR 1-6,page 1
Events that played a significant role in the structural performance of the towers on September 11, 2001, were the aircraft impact, the fireballs immediately following the aircraft impact, and the ensuing fires across multiple floors in each tower.



1.2.5 Task E – Aircraft Impact Damage
Establish the damage to the structure, insulation, and partition walls as a result of aircraft impact: The damage induced by the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft into each tower had significant influence on many facets of the analytical investigation into how and why the towers collapsed. First, the aircraft impact resulted in significant damage not only to the exterior of the buildings, but also to the floors and core structures inside the buildings and as a consequence, weakened the structures to some degree. Second, the jet fuel dispersed inside the towers ignited the building contents and furnishings, and the damage to the buildings’ facades as well as damage to the interiors influenced the amount of oxygen reaching the fires and, therefore, the speed at which the fires grew and moved throughout the affected floors. Third, the impacts of the jet aircraft were of sufficient force to dislodge significant portions of the all-important SFRM in the impact and fire-affected regions. The finite element analyses required to predict the extent of damage due to aircraft impact are presented in NIST NCSTAR 1-2. This information was then used to estimate the extent of the SFRM damage based on the results of impact simulations, including the paths of the debris field and damage to interior partitions and furnishings. Chapter 5 summarizes the results of the impact damage and the approach used to estimate the extent of insulation damage.


Have you actually read the report?
edit on 25-10-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by ANOK
 




Originally posted by ANOK

....... Planes impact did not effect the buildings integrity, even NIST admitted that much. Have your forgotten already what your precious OS actually states? Why do you need to lie LPB?



Hold on here- The planes didn't affect the buildings integrity?? Do you really believe that?

And when did the NIST admit that the planes didn't at all effect the buildings integrity?? That's one of the key elements to their report on the probable cause of collapse. Please provide a source. I've looked, but can't find where they've "admitted" that, except for the few conspiracy sites that state it is fact...

From my understanding the report seems to find that the planes DID affect the integrity.


Dont worry about ANOK,

he still cannot figure out what NIST means when they stated that "pancake collapse" was not the initiator of collapse. He takes it as if the floors never did land on top of each other, but somehow magically flew horizontally and vertically instead. So it's no surprise that he misreads the rest of NIST.




top topics



 
34
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join