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: 68
34
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Were any of those photos well lighted and close up like that one we see of the truss and perimeter panels that we see ALL OF THE DAMN TIME?

NO!

psik


Are you seriously making specific demands on pictures from the past? We can't make new pictures. All that can be done is to find the ones that already exist. Did you watch the 18 minute movie on how the towers were built? It has a number of scenes where it shows them working on the core. That's honestly the best I can give you, man, and I'm under no obligation to do any of this.
edit on 11-11-2011 by Varemia because: fixed the quote

edit on 11-11-2011 by Varemia because: fixed the quote content




posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Were any of those photos well lighted and close up like that one we see of the truss and perimeter panels that we see ALL OF THE DAMN TIME?

NO!

psik


Are you seriously making specific demands on pictures from the past? We can't make new pictures. All that can be done is to find the ones that already exist. Did you watch the 18 minute movie on how the towers were built? It has a number of scenes where it shows them working on the core. That's honestly the best I can give you, man, and I'm under no obligation to do any of this.
edit on 11-11-2011 by Varemia because: fixed the quote

edit on 11-11-2011 by Varemia because: fixed the quote content


I am not making demands for pictures I am simply pointing out that your pictures are not very informative.

Your pictures either show the interior of the core in shadow or from a distance so the joints cannot be seen. But the collapse enthusiast have well lighted close ups of truss connections and imply that they are all that is relevant. But after TEN YEARS we don't even have specs on the tons of steel on each level of the core and they were not the same all of the way down the buildings. But the floors outside the core were the same.

But it is the core that would slow down any collapse.

psik



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Well, here. I managed to find two more relevant photos from a press site:





Not sure what else I can do. Apparently you don't even want to try to use the photos.

Did you watch the video about the construction? You didn't answer me. Here's the link again in case you don't want to look:

www.pbs.org...



posted on Nov, 11 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


maybe the pilots packed explosives in their bags that was undetected?

that would explain it and it is plausible.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


I think you are doing a great job of demonstrating that close ups of horizontal to vertical joints in the core cannot be found and yet that same old same old picture of floor pans on trusses connecting to perimeter columns is supposed to convince everybody that collapse was possible.



psik


Wow, ok so those seats that we see where the top of the truss chord is placed doesnt show anything? Really? Wow. I mean, it is showing you point blank just how light these connections are, damn near flimsy I'd say in comparison to other structures that use steel I-beams to hold up floors. But hey, if you just want to bury your head in the sand deeper when shown relevant information that puts your beliefs to the garbage bin, by all means. Go ahead. Ignorance is bliss.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


We've been over this before, your silly comparison between trusses and I-Beams is meaningless. When a building is designed the floors have to be able to hold a certain amount of pressure, calculated from the estimated weight of people furniture etc., Fos. Regardless of what was used to hold up the floors, they would have been designed to hold the same amount of pressure. You are trying to make a comparison that makes no sense.


Light gauge steel trusses offer the following advantages:

High strength-to-weight ratio.

www.viccbiz.com...


What is the definition of strength-to-weight ratio?

The relationship between a material's strength and its weight. Materials that are light but also very strong have a high strength-to-weight ratio.

www.toolingu.com...



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


And the nonsense claim of you and other truthers is that these truss connections that are designed to hold a single floor were capable of holding 12 floors + columns + mast etc. And that is ignoring the dynamic load. I know, this reply will go ignored. After all ignoring, is easier than making up all kind of nonsense in order to make the facts fit in those twisted conspiracy theories. Yes, the floors were super duper strong, only silent explosives can destroy them.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Well, here. I managed to find two more relevant photos from a press site:



Not sure what else I can do. Apparently you don't even want to try to use the photos.

Did you watch the video about the construction? You didn't answer me. Here's the link again in case you don't want to look:

www.pbs.org...


That is a nice picture for informing people about the trusses. It is uninformative about the core.




Was I asking about pictures of horizontal beams in the core connecting to vertical columns or not?

psik



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Well then why don't you look for them, you condescending jerk!

Every photo I've been working to find for you has images of the core, yet you act like I've done nothing. I mean, at least act thankful that I've done anything at all for you.

Now, you still didn't answer me. Did you watch the video about the construction?



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Well then why don't you look for them, you condescending jerk!

Every photo I've been working to find for you has images of the core, yet you act like I've done nothing. I mean, at least act thankful that I've done anything at all for you.

Now, you still didn't answer me. Did you watch the video about the construction?


Maybe you should go to work for the NIST. Do a lot of work producing worthless information. 10,000 pages that don't even specify the total amount of concrete. Your pictures mostly just show thick black lines in shadow for the core components but you expect credit just for doing the work of finding the junk. You have been brainwashed by our educational system. Lots of worthless busywork.

Why can't any engineering school just build a physical model that can completely collapse? Unless of course it is IMPOSSIBLE.

But if it is IMPOSSIBLE then what does that say about all of the people who have BELIEVED this crap for TEN YEARS. So why haven't the engineering schools even talked about building a physical model?



psik
edit on 12-11-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Did. you. watch. the. video. about. the. construction?

Stop repeating your crap and answer my damn question.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


And the nonsense claim of you and other truthers is that these truss connections that are designed to hold a single floor were capable of holding 12 floors + columns + mast etc.


Who claims that? I don't.


And that is ignoring the dynamic load. I know, this reply will go ignored. After all ignoring, is easier than making up all kind of nonsense in order to make the facts fit in those twisted conspiracy theories. Yes, the floors were super duper strong, only silent explosives can destroy them.


Nope wrong, we've been over your 'dynamic loading' nonsense before. It is not ignored, I have addressed this claim of yours many times.

You are the one claiming the floors were so strong they could all stay intact while the connections failed. You also want to claim the trusses provided the support for the core so it wouldn't fall over. Make your mind up.

No matter the 'loading' the laws of motion always apply.


Newton's laws of motion
Main article: Newton's laws of motion

The most important natural laws for structural engineering are Newton's Laws of Motion

Newton's first law states that every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.

Newton's second law states that the rate of change of momentum of a body is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body and is in the same direction. Mathematically, F=ma (force = mass x acceleration).

Newton's third law states that all forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

With these laws it is possible to understand the forces on a structure and how that structure will resist them. The Third Law requires that for a structure to be stable all the internal and external forces must be in equilibrium. This means that the sum of all internal and external forces on a free-body diagram must be zero:

\sum \vec F = 0 : the vectorial sum of the forces acting on the body equals zero. This translates to

Σ H = 0: the sum of the horizontal components of the forces equals zero;
Σ V = 0: the sum of the vertical components of forces equals zero;

\sum \vec M = 0 : the sum of the moments (about an arbitrary point) of all forces equals zero.


secure.wikimedia.org...

Stop trying to create theories without addressing the laws of motion, because otherwise you fail.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Did. you. watch. the. video. about. the. construction?

Stop repeating your crap and answer my damn question.


Do yourself a favour, copy paste this into a Google search:

psikeyhackr concrete steel distribution level

You will see page after page after page after page of psik asking the same question over and over.

There is no answer to his question that will satisfy him. He will wonder the internet for the rest of eternity seeking the distribution of concrete and steel on every level, It is his destiny, Nothing will stand in his way.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Well without that information you have no grounds to make the claims you do.

For example, please tell me what pressure the truss connections were able to withstand before failure?



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Well without that information you have no grounds to make the claims you do.

For example, please tell me what pressure the truss connections were able to withstand before failure?


Do you, in contrast, have the data that proves that they could resist the upward force adequately?

No? Well then stop making claims.



posted on Nov, 12 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Who claims that? I don't.


So if the truss connections could not hold the weight, then what exactly should arrest the collapse? (I know you can't answer this).


You are the one claiming the floors were so strong they could all stay intact while the connections failed. You also want to claim the trusses provided the support for the core so it wouldn't fall over. Make your mind up.


Oh come one, you are making stuff up again. I never said such a thing. You are delusional.



blablabla


Talking about physics with someone who thinks potential energy can push up, connected top sections have no potential energy or objects in rest have kinetic energy isn't very fruitful.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Did. you. watch. the. video. about. the. construction?

Stop repeating your crap and answer my damn question.


Do yourself a favour, copy paste this into a Google search:

psikeyhackr concrete steel distribution level

You will see page after page after page after page of psik asking the same question over and over.

There is no answer to his question that will satisfy him. He will wonder the internet for the rest of eternity seeking the distribution of concrete and steel on every level, It is his destiny, Nothing will stand in his way.


I am not seeking it. I know it is not there. I am just emphasizing that it is not there. But te NIST report admitted in three places that the distribution of weight of the towers was necessary to analyze the plane impact. I demonstrated that the distributions of mass would affect the structures response to the impact.



How so many people can apparently not comprehend this grade school physics is beyond me.

Apparently truth is whatever the majority of morons believe. Maybe that explains religion.

The steel is distributed for a reason. The farther down the building you go the more weight has to be supported. But the truss connections remain the same because about 200 connections have to support one floor assembly and its live load. So the distribution of weight of truss connections remains constant. That is why they are not very important. The people trying to promote this collapse nonsense need to emphasize the unimportant.

psik
edit on 13-11-2011 by psikeyhackr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GenRadek
 


We've been over this before, your silly comparison between trusses and I-Beams is meaningless. When a building is designed the floors have to be able to hold a certain amount of pressure, calculated from the estimated weight of people furniture etc., Fos. Regardless of what was used to hold up the floors, they would have been designed to hold the same amount of pressure. You are trying to make a comparison that makes no sense.



No ANOK. Once again, you are failing to understand the difference of behavior between a truss and an I-Beam and which will survive when 15+ floors land on it. We are not talking about a static loads here ANOK. How many times does it need to be repeated for you to get it? I do not care about the floor's static load parameters. What the issue is the floor's response to a dynamic load which was obviously magnitudes higher than what the floor was designed to withstand. What exactly in the ONE floor could arrest the collapse, ANOK, if 15 floors came down as one unit?

As you can (Hopefully) see, that the trusses are being held up by what exactly? Truss seats that were welded on the exterior columns and the interior columns' horizontal beam. Obviously the truss end needs somewhere to attach to and you cannot fit all the ends to a few columns. Have you seen the end connections at all? Does it compute in your head the issue when comparing the truss connection and an I-beam? I guess I must be talking on a level that is far above your head, for you to not comprehend the big issue:

Conventional steel structures have solid I-beams arranged in a box grid and the ends of the horizontal beams have a greater amount of surface structure attached to the vertical beams in comparison to the design of the floors in the WTC. What was holding up the floor? Truss seats. What connected the floor truss to the seat? Two 5/8" bolts. That is the difference ANOK and the flaw that allowed for total collapse. Steel trussed structures are a death trap in fires. There is a reason. They are very susceptible to fires and rapid collapse. Same issue with using them as floors. Great for being light, but not good for rugged strength.

Oh I am still waiting for you to provide evidence of floors being ejected outside the footprint.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


So did you watch the tower construction video or not? I don't even care if you tell the truth anymore. I just want you to answer the question. I mean, jeez, just post, "sure," or say, "no." It's not very hard. I promise.

The video of the tower construction does show the core under construction, and you may be able to discern things from it. I'm not badgering you for no reason.



posted on Nov, 13 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Oh I am still waiting for you to provide evidence of floors being ejected outside the footprint.


Maybe it is the same place as evidence of pancaked floors.


psik




top topics



 
34
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join