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: 25
17
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

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...


Wow.

Ross doesn't even begin to make ANY claim at all in that paper about tilting and falling off into the street.

And his paper contains one simple, basic mistake that completely makes it irrelevant. Can you guess what it is?

And to top it off, there's another basic mistake that means it shouldn't be used as evidence that the collapse should have halted. But I'd be willing to bet that you don't know what this is either....

Fail




posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Why didn't it keep tilting and fall down the side?

psik


Read Bazant again, brah.

Fail



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 




It's collapse was NOT completely at free fall, as it would be in a demo btw.



Demos do NOT accelerate completely at free-fall. I suggest you have another look Captain Obvious.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Read Bazant again, brah.

Fail


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.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   

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.



Did you read his response?

An emphatic YES !!

Therefore, the conversation went completely over your head.

Fail



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

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)


Of course nothing falls of its own accord with no other reason for it to fall. According to the Laws of Thermodynamics, aren't all object potential energy anyway? It was not like someone dropped the buildings from an airplane. But then again, even gravity is a energy force, I mean look at the satellite that just fell out of orbit and hit the ground.

Did not collapse at free fall? Here is the definition of free fall from Yahoo Education
education.yahoo.com...


1 The fall of a body within the atmosphere without a drag-producing device such as a parachute.

2 The ideal falling motion of a body that is subject only to the earth's gravitational field.

3 Rapid uncontrolled decline:

There was no parachute, it was subject to gravitation and it was a rapid decline.

Even Wikipedia has the definition
en.wikipedia.org...

According to Wikipedia says that velocity is not a factor.

www.merriam-webster.com...

I think the "no free fall" argument is moot. Of course falling objects fall. Did you expect them to float? One time my stove was on fire, the fire melted the fire-proof bottom of the above-stove microwave and that bottom fell onto the stove.

So yes, they fell, we can all see they fell. We all know they fell. That falling was initialized by the fire caused by airplanes.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

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.



LOL.

Where's the maths that prove his point? Maths are necessary in physics to prove your point, agreed?

The closest provided is the failed paper from Gordon Ross, a paper so fraught with errors that it should be disregarded as anything other than a perfect example of the ineptitude of "truth" believers.

Fail



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

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



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

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


Could not fall within the time frame allotted? So someone dictates how much time each falling object has to fall in? Like there is some kind of overlord boss who says "Ok, I am allotting Object #1 this much time but #2 can only have this much time. I am after all the overlord boss who allots time."



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

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?



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So wouldn't the top kind of sag down and not drop instantaneously?

psik


Guess you're unfamiliar with how loads were shifted to other intact columns, eh?

Fail



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

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?


It's almost like these people don't understand that the INSIDE of the building was on fire. I wonder what all that smoke billowing out of the windows was all about. That must have been all the firemen smoking cigarettes.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

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


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. The truthers are just as bad because no matter how much their theories are shot down they still wont conceed to the possibility that the original story could be true. I have no problem with you guys holding on to your beliefs no matter how deluded they are but these threads have been done over again and again. 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. We will never get anyone else to believe and though I have recently changed my mind i wont tell you which side of the fence i'm on cause it don't matter. All that matters is what we do now! Who we are! I'm sure there are many more important things we can be discussing then the history of a demeaning act by demeaning people no matter whom they are! Most of us know there is no justice in the world and yet we are still all here discussing things that will never change! I think it's time for us to grow up and say though some of the things that went on the day of 911 were suspicious we wont ever know the truth for sure and we need to accept these facts and discuss stuff that can make a difference for those of us that are still here! Thank you.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

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.


1 dimensional, eh?

LOL.

Fail



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy
So someone dictates how much time each falling object has to fall in?


Not someone.

Gravity and physics dictate it.

Fail



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

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?


Who's argueing?

Truthers have no valid argument, their arguments are based on incredulity. No maths to back them up.

they fail with presenting an argument.....


The majority of the population still believes the OS and more for the comfort this theory brings then facts


No, it's because the majority realize that believing in conspiracy theories are for the most part, signs of an unstable mind.


and maybe the truthers have the right to believe that stuff was hidden.


And I agree that there was. It's just that I totally reject any and all CD theories. The only questions I have lie in the political events that led up to the intelligence failures.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

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.



This is mostly becuase the "definitive proof of false flag operations" are equally as speculative as the conspiracy claims they're being used to support. Up until now, the only thing presented was either...

...Northwoods, which was never put into effect and the guy who came up with the idea was sacked, or

...the USS Liberty incident, which these people are simply seeing as a false flag incident entirely on their own because getting Israel to admit they fired on our ship and getting them to pay restitution to the families of the crewmembers who were killed sounds like a pretty goofy false flag operation to me.

Would you enlighten us to any other examples? It has absolutely nothing to do with any underlying issues of belief of faith. It has everything to do with our disgust from all these con artists going aound saying "everything you know is false and I'll only give you the "real" truth when you give me your money".



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

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


Until Newton's 3rd Law of Motion changes to conform to Bazant?


psik



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


You repeating fail, fail, fail, just proves your ignorance, none of your point-s. The more you repeat that the truthers are deluded and all you want, wont make us deluded, just makes you look more and more like a shill. Glad to see your thread got so little attention, 400 or 500 answers and 11 flags should be a telltale sign.
So kiddo, anything important to say aside of: fail?



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saltarello
anything important to say aside of: fail?


Yep.

No truther has been able to answer the OP. Including you.

Fail



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join