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.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by ka119
Ill also remember not to relate anything of such simplicity in front of you, seemed to go right over your head.
Again, I notice right away that despite being free to post whatever maths you can dredge up about how it should have tipped, you have yet again avoided doing so.
Fail
Here you go, not that you would even understand it ("the maths")
www.journalof911studies.com...
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Why didn't it keep tilting and fall down the side?
psik
It's collapse was NOT completely at free fall, as it would be in a demo btw.
Read Bazant again, brah.
Fail
Originally posted by bigwig22
AIR SPACE between floors? There were no walls or support columns to hold these floors? They were floating in the air? C'mon... don't be ridiculous.. Yeah.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Originally posted by conar
So you agree NIST was wrong, and the truth is still out there. Cool, then we are on the same page.
We need to look for explosives and explosive theories though, because WTC 7 went into freefall. So we have to look into all possibilities if we want to follow the scienctific method
Again with the freefall exagerations and lies?...
It has been proven several times the towers did not collapse at freefall...
You should stop with the exagerations and lies...edit on 28-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MollyStewart
ANOK: The Laws of motion
This was as concise as it gets and was what you..the OP asked for. So being rude about the response was uncalled for.
Originally posted by jamesackerson
Well for one.. the "The Coefficient of Friction" alone dictates that the buildings "could not" fall within the time frame they were allotted (given that the pancake theory was validated by the commission board as being the reason for the buildings failure)
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by jamesackerson
Well for one.. the "The Coefficient of Friction" alone dictates that the buildings "could not" fall within the time frame they were allotted (given that the pancake theory was validated by the commission board as being the reason for the buildings failure)
As usual, a truther makes a claim, yet doesn't provide any numbers or calcs to show he's right.
Fail
Originally posted by citizen3273676
lets assume the fire was hot enough wouldnt the steel fail gradually as it reached tempature
not the entire building all at once?
building 7 really highlights these points as even the 9/11 commision couldnt come up with a plausible explanation as to how a 47 story building over a block long fell in its own footprint at just under freefall speed and was never hit by a plane nor was it entirely on fire and yet the entire building collapsed? i doubt thats even possible much less likely.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So wouldn't the top kind of sag down and not drop instantaneously?
psik
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by citizen3273676
lets assume the fire was hot enough wouldnt the steel fail gradually as it reached tempature
That's exactly what happened.
not the entire building all at once?
Read above again and think it through.
Columns failed slowly over time due to high load, moderate temp structural creep. That means that columns shortened slightly, therefore there was no local buckling that would result in local failures.
But eventually, there aren't enough intact columns to hold up the building, and THEN they buckle.
building 7 really highlights these points as even the 9/11 commision couldnt come up with a plausible explanation as to how a 47 story building over a block long fell in its own footprint at just under freefall speed and was never hit by a plane nor was it entirely on fire and yet the entire building collapsed? i doubt thats even possible much less likely.
But NIST did.
Have you read it?
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
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
Originally posted by Darkwing01
You mean the one where he stipulates a 1-dimensional collapse model (i.e. there was no side to collapse to)?
Bazant doesn't prove that that is what should have happened, he assumed it had to.
Originally posted by WarminIndy
So someone dictates how much time each falling object has to fall in?
Originally posted by nosacrificenofreedom
Canoli do you have a horse in this race? God why are you people still argueing about this after 10 years?
The majority of the population still believes the OS and more for the comfort this theory brings then facts
and maybe the truthers have the right to believe that stuff was hidden.
Originally posted by nosacrificenofreedom
Canoli do you have a horse in this race? God why are you people still argueing about this after 10 years? Is it not obvious by now that no matter how much evidence is provided on either side that there are certain unrelated underlaying issues of belief and faith that wont let either party conceed. I am sure we can show the OSers definitive proof of false flag actions but they would still hold true to their beliefs that this could not happen.
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Why didn't it keep tilting and fall down the side?
psik
Read Bazant again, brah.
Fail
Originally posted by Saltarello
anything important to say aside of: fail?