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.

 

"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

page: 15
17
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CannotGoHome

The `report` states that heat caused the floor pans connections to shift and bow away from the immensely thick and ridgedly interlocked side wall panels


No.

The trusses sagged from the heat, forming a pull in the ext columns through catenary action.


which led to the shear weight causing a pancake collapse.


There are 2 phases of the collapse.

1- initiation requires the physical and fire damage. there is nothing involving IHOP here.

2- collapse progression involves pan-caking of the floors. NIST even refers to it in their examination of the floor connections.


why on earth with any real laws of physics active that day would those outer panels have fallen they way they did ?


Cuz the floors were stripped away from them. What you had then was basically a set of culomns that were in a single plane and not very strong. They then tipped outwards and broke off.


How then did the `pile` end up so small


A lot went into the basement.

The towers were mostly air.


virtually indestructable steel.


LOL....


And Who ate all the pancakes ?


Gravity


What is even more unreal to me is this notion of intense heat travelling thru the steel and almost melting it


NIST never makes this claim of the columns. Try researching high load, moderate temperature creep. That is another factor how collapse initiation came about.

.

This frame was a Massive heat sink that would have sucked away most of the heat transfer potential


Tell us how much.

Tell us how effective it would be when 30-40 continuous feet is being heated by fires raging on several floors.


that steel was seriously thick


Not higher up it wasn't. Like where heating is required.


the outer frame would not fragment into powder.


Agreed.

It didn't.


To say that the exact same fate occured to 2 seperate buildings ( hang on... 3 buildings )


Nope.

7 was a completely different failure mechanism.


within hours of each other, really stinks mate, I dont buy it.


Your incredulity is noted.

Fail




posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 

There are over 1500 liscened PEng's and AIA's as part of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, or at least as signatories to their petition to Congress.

Watch the video why don't you before commenting, thanks.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Much work has been done, with maths, yes.



If it was credible, then it would have garnered some attention.

It hasn't, therefore.....

Fail



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ka119

Now theres some reality for you people, remember long ago playing Jenga?

If you removed the wrong block, it all went toppling over to the side. Let alone if you smack the Jenga tower on the side. Or did it all fall directly into itself... I seem to have lost my common sense.


Skyscrapers, with very few exceptions, are not built with Jenga blocks.

Fail
edit on 27-9-2011 by Joey Canoli because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

cheers mate. go and watch the News channel now in case there`s something you`ve missed and really `need to know about`

fail.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius

Thanks for the measured response, Joey. As far as the link to the tipping argument, are you referring to the Bazant & Zhou link I found in one of your posts? If so, I'll check it out.


Yup.

There are others too...


As far as information you're willing to provide, is that limited only to the collapse issues, or other questions I might have on general 9/11 issues?


Like anybody, some topics do not interest me.

Like say debunking no planers, etc....


As far as how to decide which & what's correct, indeed that's the rub, and I get lost in everything I find on both side but am left with questions to help find the way.


And there lies the difference between what is commonly referred to as a truther vs a twoofer. truthers recognize this. Twoofs do not....


On a side note, as seems 9/11 'debunking' is pretty much your only interest on ATS. Nothing else here catches your fancy?


Conspiracies? Not so much.

I READ tg\hreads about advancements in aircraft, etc.

And the oddities like self propelled craft capable of going downwind faster than the wind....



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
If you've done all the research, then I say you are a disgraceful human being involved in a heinous cover up.


So now I'm a paid disinfo shill or something, eh?

This is how one can tell when your counterpart has zero defense of his position.

Fail

I didn't say that.

Fail.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 
Show me a video or present me with any other example of any building of any sort, anywhere, at any time collapsing into its own footprint otherwise.

Until then, I'll consider my point inarguable as all other examples of unintentional collapse or mishaps during intentional demolition - that I'm aware of - agree with what I'm saying.


Show me a video or present me with any other example of any building of any sort, anywhere, at any time, that was hit by a full size passenger aircraft, with the same fuel load and at the same angles. Oh wait, that hasn't happened before...

If anyone wants to read a great review (with math etc.) about the rubble and dust piles, feel free to look here:

www.uwgb.edu...

Read it all and please provide feedback.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Because it's never happened before that day and not once since...what is your point? It looks like you can bounce around a bit so why don't you just go ahead and land whatever it is your flying?

WTC7: A steel structure building has never fallen into it's own footprint with fires as the cause. Is this not true? There is your one fact. That tower couldn't have fallen that way without help.

I could really care less what you believe, but since you asked.
edit on 26-9-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)


Don't forget the 'free fall' speed of the collapse as well... not only has it not happened b4 or after, but it happened 3 times in the same day... and all the NSA info that was in building 7 while they were supposedly actively looking to track that missing $3 TRILLION... very, very convenient.
I don't believe in coincidence... let alone a f**k ton all happening at once.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
If you've done all the research, then I say you are a disgraceful human being involved in a heinous cover up.


So now I'm a paid disinfo shill or something, eh?

This is how one can tell when your counterpart has zero defense of his position.

Fail

I didn't say that.

Fail.


Still avoiding the fact that many of the first responders were quotemined, eh?

You didn't REALLY want to know about that, did you?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy

I don't believe in coincidence... let alone a f**k ton all happening at once.


Personal incredulity noted.

Zero maths provided as evidence as to WHY the towers couldn't have collapsed....

Fail



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ka119

Now theres some reality for you people, remember long ago playing Jenga?

If you removed the wrong block, it all went toppling over to the side. Let alone if you smack the Jenga tower on the side. Or did it all fall directly into itself... I seem to have lost my common sense.


Skyscrapers, with very few exceptions, are built with Jenga blocks.

Fail


Uh oh look out for this guy!


I could of sworn the last time I went in the Quest building downtown it was constructed out of giant wooden blocks stamped with the trademark Jenga..
Hmm.

Seems the common sense train smacked you right in the middle of the face there!

Let me explain. I was providing an experience with which people could relate to (with physics and all) In case you were unaware, there are these handy things called trusses that the floors used for support. Seems a little odd that these all just caved way into each other eh? Especially falling seconds away from free fall speed.

After all, they were hit by a plane. (those are big)

You would think it would fall just a little out of its foot prints, wouldn't you?

Of course, you fail to neglect that when something is taken out from the bottom, it collapses into itself.

We've got another winner in here.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by AngryAlien
 
Thanks for the link, I've got it bookmarked and will review as able.

As far as the planes hitting the buildings, how much would they realistically figure in to the structural integrity of the dozens of floors below (this being the reason for my asking for any other examples of collapse)?

Pretty much all arguments I've seen leave the collapse as a result of 'pancaking', etc. due to the upper part coming down, without making any claims that the floors below were otherwise compromised, so it seems to me that other building collapses would be a good analogue for comparison of HOW they collapse when there is not (successful) intelligent design guiding the process. Granted, this is not anything I've put significant time into researching.

Is there research out there indicating the lower floors were structurally unsound otherwise, making other collapse events unfair for comparison (and could you guide me to it, if so)?

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ka119

We've got another winner in here.


You bet.

I noticed right away that you cannot provide any maths that back your analogy of using Jenga blocks.

Fail



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius

As far as the planes hitting the buildings, how much would they realistically figure in to the structural integrity of the dozens of floors below


Virtually none.


Pretty much all arguments I've seen leave the collapse as a result of 'pancaking', etc. due to the upper part coming down, without making any claims that the floors below were otherwise compromised, so it seems to me that other building collapses would be a good analogue for comparison of HOW they collapse when there is not (successful) intelligent design guiding the process.


What if there is no one guiding the collapse?

But rather, it is found that as a result of the specific design, this happens?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Like i said, i'm well aware how this stuff works, o.k.?
Math doesn't mean squat, apparently, in case you missed it, E doesn't equal MC^2
I know how steel constructions work, and they don't disintegrate & drop neatly into their own footprint, and no amount of math (and i will study your links) will prove otherwise.
edit on 27-9-2011 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines

and no amount of math (and i will study your links) will prove otherwise.


LOL.

Ok dude.

Fail



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ka119



Did you seriously just try and get back at me using my exact same points? Wow. Think for yourself there pal.


Hey, you actually think that insulting people makes your point valid, so I thought maybe showing you how STUPID is your argument for "insulting people who don't agree with you" and how it DOES NOT prove your point would wake you up to the facts...

Perhaps when you grow up you will understand this...or perhaps not...


Originally posted by ka119

Would you care to post some proof backing what you believe?
All this bitching and moaning is tiring me out! Time to look at some cold hard 'facts' the government fed the sheeple.

Have at it champ.


I actually posted FACTS, and not made up BS from blogs which are wrong...

WHATREALLYHAPPENED is a blog which does not prove anything at all but the incompetence of the people running it.

They even show a video of WTC7, and you can CLEARLY see it collapsing in parts, the penthouse and part of the roof is seen collapsing 8 second before the rest of the building collapse and this shows it was collapsing in the inside, or on the back and it is not shown on video because there were no cameras filming the back as it was collapsing, yet they still claim "it was a controlled demolition"...



edit on 27-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
The towers on 9/11 fell in accordance with all laws of physics. You cannot say that they could not have fallen that way since you have

1. No precedent. You have no idea what a 105 story building will do. Since it was built in the 3 'sections', i think it was lucky that is did not tip or the loss of life would have been greater.

2. No explosives. There were none and none were needed. The impact and ensuing fires were enough to weaken the structure to the point of failure.

3. No free fall speed. It did not fall at free fall speed. Watch this video...Link to video

It is all there. It is a belief that the truther has, like a religion. He who talks the loudest and posts the most videos is bound to win.

edit on 27-9-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


Nice to see someone who understands what he`s seeing.
It dont make sense to me either. In no way was the lower structure compromised. ( yes i`ve seen the heat wave thru the lift shaft videos ) You would be right to expect some part of those structures to stand up to any downward forces.
Could I also just send another retort back to my mate Joey. I seen him start up the planer/no-planer thing. I guess he really has to be a NO/PLANER simply because the plane seen in Hertz`s video show an aluminium can, never mind titanium based engines just vanishing thru solid steel and in the case of Shanksville - deep underground..without a trace.
Now you see plane >>> now no plane >> Joey`s a no planer, obviously.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join