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: 55
34
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





So their only strategy is to try to convince laymen that they are too stupid to comprehend this problem.



Well said. This is the strategy of most of the 911 forums; and to confuse and dissuade the genuinely curious.




posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Who says I don't understand how something happened? Just because someone doesn't understand how something happened, it doesn't mean your explanation must be the answer.



It's very obvious since you keep harping on this 15vs95 baloney. If they are still standing after the initial collapse they are not part of the resistance equation plain and simple. My explanation is that the upper section was crumbling internally and then externally and then split the outer skin like a banana which is clearly shown in the video I provided (and you made fun of my banana skin description!). It takes the place (rightly I must add) of the idiotic "columns exploding horizontally" theory which is crucial to the Truther Fantasy. Some of the skin is falling outward away from the center and the things fluttering are the stainless steel cladding of the outer skin. I love the comparison videos of other types of buildings collapsing as if it is an accurate representation of how these buildings "should have fallen". It's stupidity at its best because people like you try to twist it into some physics equation. My DESCRIPTION of what is going on explains more accurately what was happening than anything you or any of the other misinformed people with agendas have come up with.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by piles
 



....therefore without having access to secret documents you can't predict how much fuel was onboard those planes.


Only when you have no practical knowledge nor experience in aviation is a statement like that made.

You see, there is no need for "secret" documents. All airline flights have what's called a "Load Sheet", "Weight & Balance" calculation (they describe the same sort of paperwork).

The airline companies retain the information for every flight for a minimum of 90 days....and, when there is an accident or incident, then the data is retained indefinitely as part of the investigative record.


The loading and balance paperwork includes, basically:

  • Aircraft Operating Weight (This is the "empty" weight, plus crew and req'd equipment)
  • Fuel on board
  • Number of passengers (using a standard "average" weight for each, a total is derived)
  • Number of checked bags (same as above, and "average" count and weight)
  • Weight of any payload cargo being carried.
  • The physical location/distribution along the longitudinal axis, of all that weight

    If it's an all-freight airline, then the passenger count is not relevant of course.

    Note, the 'Fuel on Board' (FOB) is known, and recorded in the paperwork, in many places. Electronically, too...transmitted (down-linked) via the on-board ACARS to dispatch at the company headquarters.

    Based on the known typical rate of fuel consumption (or, "burn") for any particular model and type of jet, then a reasonable estimate of the remaining amount of fuel at the time of impact with the Towers can be calculated.

    Simple, really.



  • posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 10:28 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by ANOK

    If the core was not 'blown up', why did it start to collapse before the floors did, indicating the hat truss dropped?
    (strangely can't find that vid on youtube now, it was there a few days ago)

    Why did the core collapse AT ALL if just the floors connections failed?

    In fact lets get back to the start, why did the towers collapse period? The sagging truss hypothesis is complete nonsense.



    The part of the core that most likely initiated the collapse was probably the columns that were either cut in half or damaged by the plane impacts. Imagine the ones completely sheared- wtf is holding them up? I never said that just the floor connections failed, actually they were probably secondary to the core failures. Ok so back to the start of why the towers collapsed: before the plane impacts the buildings were perfectly fine. After the impacts the buildings were S.O.L.



    posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 01:49 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by bottleslingguy
    The part of the core that most likely initiated the collapse was probably the columns that were either cut in half or damaged by the plane impacts.


    You say that like its a perfectly acceptable possibility. I would say a plane that had been ripped to shreds, and slowed way down by punching through the steel mesh outer columns, would hardly have the energy left to cut even more massive columns in half.


    Imagine the ones completely sheared- wtf is holding them up? I never said that just the floor connections failed, actually they were probably secondary to the core failures. Ok so back to the start of why the towers collapsed: before the plane impacts the buildings were perfectly fine. After the impacts the buildings were S.O.L.


    Sorry I can't imagine the impossible.

    LOL so because the towers were fine before the plane hits the planes MUST be what caused the collapses? Nothing else could have possibly been involved?



    posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 08:33 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by ANOK


    LOL so because the towers were fine before the plane hits the planes MUST be what caused the collapses? Nothing else could have possibly been involved?


    Fire & Gravity



    posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 09:50 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Six Sigma

    Originally posted by ANOK


    LOL so because the towers were fine before the plane hits the planes MUST be what caused the collapses? Nothing else could have possibly been involved?


    Fire & Gravity


    The buildings were designed to be held up against gravity by

    STEEL

    The fire would have to weaken that much steel in less than

    TWO HOURS.

    Bt then the Physics Profession does not want to know the tons of steel on every level of the towers.

    Very Strange!

    psik



    posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 09:56 PM
    link   
    reply to post by psikeyhackr
     


    did anyone hear about over 100 people who were in the twin towers reporting explosions going off within the building? firefighters ended up pulling men out of the building and evacuating as a result...

    if you believe the official events then what was the official explaination?



    posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 10:05 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by piles
    reply to post by psikeyhackr
     


    did anyone hear about over 100 people who were in the twin towers reporting explosions going off within the building? firefighters ended up pulling men out of the building and evacuating as a result...

    if you believe the official events then what was the official explaination?


    Funny none of the survivors in stair well b mentioned any thing about explosions and they were inside the building when it collapsed. They did mention "a lot of wind" but no explosions. They also didn't suffer any barotrauma isn't that odd?



    posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 10:11 PM
    link   
    reply to post by waypastvne
     


    just picked this video at random

    lots of explosions,

    www.youtube.com...

    [youtube]8n-nT-luFIw[/youtube]



    posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 11:06 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by piles
    reply to post by psikeyhackr
     


    did anyone hear about over 100 people who were in the twin towers reporting explosions going off within the building? firefighters ended up pulling men out of the building and evacuating as a result...

    if you believe the official events then what was the official explaination?


    What makes you think I believe the official explanation. The NIST can't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

    psik



    posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 01:48 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Six Sigma

    Originally posted by ANOK


    LOL so because the towers were fine before the plane hits the planes MUST be what caused the collapses? Nothing else could have possibly been involved?


    Fire & Gravity


    So do you just simply dismiss anything, and everything, that contradicts the OS?

    All these years of debate, and you still think fire and gravity can cause a steel framed building to collapse completely to the ground?

    Only if you ignore facts that contradict that claim.

    Let's start with the fire...


    Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.


    The first tower to collapse was in fire for LESS than ONE hour.

    Now the fires were only on the floors above the impact point of the planes, which means no steel bellow that point was subjected to fire or heat. Those fires were not even on all the floors above the impact as when fuel was used up the fires moved.

    We've all seen this pic before, it shows that the fire was no longer active at the impact point, it moved, and the steel no longer hot in that area...



    Then you have to consider this....


    It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.

    www.doctorfire.com...

    Are you making that common mistake?

    So to sum up about the fires. Not hot enough to cause steel to fail. Period.

    As far as gravity, well without your magic fires heating up ALL the steel to failure then the building will simply do what it was designed to do, resist gravity.



    posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 06:38 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by ANOK

    Originally posted by bottleslingguy
    The part of the core that most likely initiated the collapse was probably the columns that were either cut in half or damaged by the plane impacts.


    You say that like its a perfectly acceptable possibility. I would say a plane that had been ripped to shreds, and slowed way down by punching through the steel mesh outer columns, would hardly have the energy left to cut even more massive columns in half.


    Imagine the ones completely sheared- wtf is holding them up? I never said that just the floor connections failed, actually they were probably secondary to the core failures. Ok so back to the start of why the towers collapsed: before the plane impacts the buildings were perfectly fine. After the impacts the buildings were S.O.L.


    Sorry I can't imagine the impossible.

    LOL so because the towers were fine before the plane hits the planes MUST be what caused the collapses? Nothing else could have possibly been involved?



    Sorry ANOK but in the North Tower struck high up your core columns were NOT massive as you keep telling us the steel was thinner at the top REMEMBER


    The South Tower had a far more massive load above the impact point!

    Anyway why to reply to the FOS bs you were talking about ie FOS adding together



    posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 06:45 PM
    link   
    reply to post by ANOK
     


    The Cardington fire test temps above 800 C after 30 mins

    30.0 781 779 738 612 872


    First fig above time in mins others temps ARE FOR PARTS OF THE BEAM gridline E location B14

    872 C LETS HAVE A LOOK



    Less than 10% of its strength!!!!

    even 612 c means less than 40%

    Just look how long to reach the highest temp for that location

    39.5 983 933 891 749 1078

    Less than 40 mins to reach 1078c





    edit on 30-10-2011 by wmd_2008 because: added data



    posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 07:01 PM
    link   
    reply to post by wmd_2008
     


    For fire to have caused complete collapse of the towers, there would have to have been more than fire on the few floors above the impact point, regardless of how hot you think the fire/steel could have got in an hour.

    You can't make the claim that losing X amount of strength would cause automatic failure, unless you know the pressure that component was able to withstand before failure. Do you know what that was?

    Even IF 100% of the steel, that was in contact with heat failed, it could not cause the unaffected steel to also fail.

    I have shown you that the fire was not consistent, that steel that WAS in direct contact with fire, in fact in the area the plane impacted and exploded, was no longer in contact with fire, and in fact cool enough for someone to stand near. Which is consistent with reality as we know it.

    So explain again how fire caused the collapses? And no please not the sagging trusses nonsense, that can be debunked in one sentence...A truss sagging from heat, can not also create a pulling force. That sentence is easily explained with common sense science. A hint, steel expands when heated. Think about it.



    posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 09:08 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by ANOK
    You say that like its a perfectly acceptable possibility. I would say a plane that had been ripped to shreds, and slowed way down by punching through the steel mesh outer columns, would hardly have the energy left to cut even more massive columns in half.


    and I think you are twisting physics to fit your fantasy




    posted on Oct, 30 2011 @ 09:16 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by ANOK

    ...A truss sagging from heat, can not also create a pulling force. That sentence is easily explained with common sense science. A hint, steel expands when heated. Think about it.


    obviously you didn't because you conveniently forgot the weight of the 4.5 inches of concrete the truss was carrying.

    heat+expand+weight=sag

    you crack me up



    posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 12:42 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by ANOK

    Originally posted by Six Sigma

    Originally posted by ANOK


    LOL so because the towers were fine before the plane hits the planes MUST be what caused the collapses? Nothing else could have possibly been involved?


    Fire & Gravity


    So do you just simply dismiss anything, and everything, that contradicts the OS?

    All these years of debate, and you still think fire and gravity can cause a steel framed building to collapse completely to the ground?

    Only if you ignore facts that contradict that claim.

    Let's start with the fire...


    Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.


    The first tower to collapse was in fire for LESS than ONE hour.

    Now the fires were only on the floors above the impact point of the planes, which means no steel bellow that point was subjected to fire or heat. Those fires were not even on all the floors above the impact as when fuel was used up the fires moved.

    We've all seen this pic before, it shows that the fire was no longer active at the impact point, it moved, and the steel no longer hot in that area...



    Then you have to consider this....


    It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.

    www.doctorfire.com...

    Are you making that common mistake?

    So to sum up about the fires. Not hot enough to cause steel to fail. Period.

    As far as gravity, well without your magic fires heating up ALL the steel to failure then the building will simply do what it was designed to do, resist gravity.


    But steel did fail...

    No no I agree that regular office fires couldn't do it, especially in an hour, but what about the 'molten metal', what about the bent beams without any cracks, what about the 'meteorite' and the excessive heat at the three tower sites that strangely lingered?

    There was fire all right, but what kind?

    What kind of 'fire' would account for those things I just mentioned? For if office fires and 'jet fuel' couldn't do it and it came down in an hour and we have all these Extreme Heat Anomalies, then exactly what kind of fire was it?

    Edit: Yes yes you got me, I don't think it was Fire, Explosives or Thermite...


    Cheers
    edit on 31-10-2011 by NWOwned because: added line



    posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 01:27 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by NWOwned
    Edit: Yes yes you got me, I don't think it was Fire, Explosives or Thermite...


    ...and the only way we will know that is with a new investigation.

    To me what did it is not important at this point, all that matters is that the NIST report, and the OS supporters claims, that contradict the NIST report btw, are not based on science, and are bogus.



    posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 01:33 AM
    link   
    reply to post by bottleslingguy
     


    lol that video is not reality.

    Go take a physics class then come back and tell me I'm wrong.

    Oh wait, I'll make it easy for you...


    What Happens When Two Things Collide

    This selection will show you what happens when two objects crash into each other, or collide.

    www.fearofphysics.com/Collide/collide.html

    Yes it is a site made for children, thus the 'big red truck'. Sorry but this level of physics is generally taught to children, so it's hard to find an adult alternative. It doesn't matter, if you are correct then the demonstration will prove you right. Go ahead, prove me wrong, this is your chance.




    top topics



     
    34
    << 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

    log in

    join