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: 9
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Fireproofing, or not, the majority of the steel came no where near any fire. WTC 2 was on fire for less than an hour, nowhere near enough time for steel to reach anything like critical temps. Even if it did there would be obvious local failure of the steel that got too hot, not the whole building suddenly failing.


Wasn't there an experiment done that showed that steel exposed directly to jet fuel fire would heat up high enough within just a couple minutes? How have you determined how long it "should" have taken for the steel to reach "critical" temps?




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


That experiment was under ideal conditions with a very high amount of jet fuel available, not to mention the steel they used was a scale size compared to the WTC's steel columns. Also the steel failed, not collapse in a molten mess.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Se7enex because: edit



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Se7enex
reply to post by Varemia
 


That experiment was under ideal conditions with a very high amount of jet fuel available, not to mention the steel they used was a scale size compared to the WTC's steel columns. Also the steel failed, not collapse in a molten mess.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Se7enex because: edit


Are you implying that the WTC's did that? There were hot spots, likely where fuel was still burning underground, but the towers mostly collapsed into rubble and dust.

Who are you and why have you not done any reading before joining these threads?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


No they didnt "use planes" to take down the buildings, the planes are a cover for the actual demolition.

If the buildings had of just collapsed without the planes hitting them, it would look like an obvious demolition and they would not have "Derp it was the jet fuel melting the steel" excuse for them coming down, there would be nowhere for NIST to hide, we wouldn't be having this (ongoing) discussion.
It would be more obvious than it is.

The planes are a hang up for those people who cannot get beyond them, simple.
Simpletons continuously engage with the OS of planes being responsible and parrot it ad nauseum constantly defending the OS story and a terrorist government.
If their was ANY possibility of the government having done this don't you think you should sit down and be quiet and let the government defend their own story?.
If their is ANY possibility the government murdered 3000 civilians in an act of home grown terror, a failed coup de tat by some part of the government, don't you think you should put any notions of being more clever than the 10,000 plus architects and engineers, the 3000 plus pilots and the large disbelieving portion of the american population and get with the program and raise hell until all the questions are answered fully?.
Why Wouldn't a government accused of such a thing want to ensure all the allegations against it are giving fair hearing and answered under the framework of law that an event of mass murder deserves?.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


If the steel just failed, there would be huge amounts of wrangled steel wouldn't there? Why would it turn into "rubble and dust" ?

edit on 17-9-2011 by Se7enex because: edit



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Se7enex
reply to post by Varemia
 


If the steel just failed, there would be huge amounts of wrangled steel wouldn't there?


Are you presuming that there wasn't? You must have missed something somewhere.

911research.wtc7.net...

There are three pictures of twisted metal.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 

hydraulic fluid isn't directly accessible to the outside environment, so to heat it up that much would take prolonged exposure. you could easily pick up molten metal and move it without breaking the machines. the rubble temperature for weeks was around 1100F, yet the machines obviously handled it ok. i'm sure some wore out, but it wouldn't be a problem.

besides, having driven a few very leaky JLG lifts, i can assure you, they still work when they leak =P



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Wasn't there an experiment done that showed that steel exposed directly to jet fuel fire would heat up high enough within just a couple minutes? How have you determined how long it "should" have taken for the steel to reach "critical" temps?


Again so what?

Even IF all the steel that was in contact with fire melted, it doesn't mean the rest of the unaffected building is going to globally collapse.

Steel is weakened by fire, but that does not mean the rest of the building will also fail, that is a logical fallacy.

How many more time do the laws of motion have to be explained before you get this?

No one is claiming what you say is not true, just that you make huge illogical leaps based on shaky evidence. You make leaps of logic without really considering the physics involved. Not once do you guys use the laws of motion to explain your hypothesis...


The Importance of Newton's Laws

Newton's laws are extremely important not just in mechanics but in the whole of physics. When trying to understand a physical process, we often understand it by looking at the forces acting and working out the equations of motion. This is true of the motion of the planets to the flow of electrons in an electric or magnetic field.

www.splung.com...


edit on 9/17/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by humphreysjim
The building did not collapse into its own footprint.


Oh for crusty chickens sake yes it did...


WT7 damaged the Verizon building, and WT7 was hit itself with debris, so it cannot have fallen into its own footprint. Debris was scattered long and wide.


Originally posted by ANOKYour arguments are so old, and have been debunked years ago.

Seriously ATS needs a 911 for beginners, that they have to read before posting, sod we don't have to keep continuously going over these already debunked points.


Argue using facts as much as you like, but save me the BS rhetoric, yes?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Here are more pictures of the rubble, in case anyone wants to make any claims about the tower collapsing into pools of molten metal:

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by The X
reply to post by humphreysjim
 
don't you think you should put any notions of being more clever than the 10,000 plus architects and engineers, the 3000 plus pilots and the large disbelieving portion of the american population and get with the program and raise hell until all the questions are answered fully?.


Using numbers is pointless, what is more important is the percentage. A very small minority of experts disagree strongly with the general thrust of the OS. You are the one disagreeing with the experts, not me.

Your statements make as much sense as rejecting evolutionary theory because a few thousand scientists also reject it, ignoring the hundreds and hundreds of thousands who embrace it wholeheartedly.

As for the percentage of Americans who doubt the OS, well we are talking about a nation whose majority also believes in Angels, and other nonsense, so forgive me if I don't put much stock in their opinions either.

Who is being the sheep now?
edit on 17-9-2011 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by The X
don't you think you should put any notions of being more clever than the 10,000 plus architects and engineers, the 3000 plus pilots .


You have 2 too many zeroes in that statement.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



in case anyone wants to make any claims about the tower collapsing into pools of molten metal

i do, actually.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Look at the size of the twin towers, any amount of heating from 10.000 gallons of jet fuel would have been moved around the entirety of the steel frame, a localised heating event would have the entirety of the steel frame to heat uniformly before any sagging or deformation took place.
Did you know the twin towers were made of the highest grade architectural steel ever manufactured at that point in time?.
Any steel used in demonstrations most likely would not meet the same standards.
There was also a steady wind blowing that day and this would have also cooled the steel beams by stripping excess heat that was radiating from the steel, wherever it was exposed.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


YOU said rubble and dust not me!



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
WT7 damaged the Verizon building, and WT7 was hit itself with debris, so it cannot have fallen into its own footprint. Debris was scattered long and wide.


No it wasn't. Do you have problems with looking at pictures?

The majority of the building is in its footprint, evidence by the outer walls being on top of the rest of the collapsed building.

No implosion collapse is perfect and some debris will go outside of the footprint. In a normal demolition the surrounding buildings would be protected with tarps.


Argue using facts as much as you like, but save me the BS rhetoric, yes?


Then spare me your tired old debunked arguments, yes?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by The X
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


No they didnt "use planes" to take down the buildings, the planes are a cover for the actual demolition.

If the buildings had of just collapsed without the planes hitting them, it would look like an obvious demolition and they would not have "Derp it was the jet fuel melting the steel" excuse for them coming down, there would be nowhere for NIST to hide, we wouldn't be having this (ongoing) discussion.
It would be more obvious than it is.


You miss the point.

a) This does not explain the need for explosives AND thermite
b) It doesn't even really explain the need for the explosives. Planes crashing into the WTC and Pentagon causing people to leap to their deaths wouldn't have been sufficient to prompt a war?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Let's not forget the various incrimanting documents in the buildings. And there is a lot of personal gain in destroying those buildings. Just look a the stock market before the attack.
edit on 17-9-2011 by Se7enex because: Additional Stuff



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by humphreysjim
WT7 damaged the Verizon building, and WT7 was hit itself with debris, so it cannot have fallen into its own footprint. Debris was scattered long and wide.


No it wasn't. Do you have problems with looking at pictures?


This video shows some of the damage it caused to surrounding structures:

www.youtube.com...#!



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Se7enex
reply to post by Varemia
 


YOU said rubble and dust not me!


So what is in those pictures then? Magic?

This is just ridiculous. I'm leaving.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join