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: 37
17
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Holy #! Do you make up things as you go along your "debunking" crusade?

Look at any video of 9-11 and those towers are coming down FREE FALL. Even a blind man can see this.




posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Let me guess, you read this on a truther site or heard it in a youtube video?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Let me guess, you read this on a truther site or heard it in a youtube video?




watch the video. Like I said even a "blind man" can see the tower coming straight down while disintegrating. Only a demolition job could do that but in all likelyhood the explosives were built-in when the struture was built back in the 60s-70s.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
...the explosives were built-in when the struture was built back in the 60s-70s.


Now we KNOW you can't recognize bull#.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Explosives are not reliable after a certain point due to corrosion of materials, and there is danger of accidental detonation if they are radio-operated. There would have to be hard-wired demolitions which are serviced frequently, and there is no history of that. Someone would have talked about servicing them, since you can't do so without knowing what you're doing.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Once again for those who fail to understand the laws of motion, when two objects collide the forces on each object is equal, equal and opposite in direction.



I'll just repost this, since you ignored it.

Towhich, Bazant has indeed stated so very eloquently:

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

"As explained at the outset in every course on
mechanics of materials, this law is automatically satisfied,
since all the calculations are based on the concept of stress or
internal force, which consists of a pair of opposite forces of
equal magnitude acting on the opposite surfaces of any imagined
cut through the material or structure. This concept is so
central to the discipline of structural mechanics and selfevident
to structural engineers that Newton’s third law is
never even mentioned in publications."



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Show me the floors still in the footprints of the towers.

Unless you can do that your claims are nonsense.


No no no ANOK, that is not how this game is played: YOU made the claim that floors were ejected. I want to see what actual evidence you base this absurdity on. If you say, because you dont see them in the footprint, well,
I'm just going laugh at you and i am going to repeat it again. Show me a picture or video during the collapse, of the floors being ejected. I cannot believe you can be this dense. You made the claim, back it up chief. You made the claim, back it up. As for me, I have seen the evidence and see it to be true. I even showed it to you. You dont like it, so you ignore it. Typical.


I've given you even the first hand accounts of workers that were cutting into the footprint debris and discovering many many floors compressed into fractions of their original size. Some described it as looking at a geological formation of layers of floors all squashed down. and I have shown you the pictures. Just because YOU have the habit of ignoring it doesnt mean that I have to re-post it again and again and again and again. Go back to previous posts of mine where I have posted what you requested for me to do, and find it yourself. Just because you ignored them or ran away from it after I posted doesnt mean I didnt.

Here cause I KNOW you wont bother looking for it:





Even in Dr. Jones pathetic slideshow for his thermite delusions:


www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 10/13/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

I'm just trying to point out that the bottom floors would push back against the falling floors, and you are ignoring that part of the equation. You are ignoring the resistance of the stationary floors. You are ignoring the laws of motion that govern all objects, and how they react in collisions.


And again.

Towhich, Bazant has indeed stated so very eloquently:

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

"As explained at the outset in every course on
mechanics of materials, this law is automatically satisfied,
since all the calculations are based on the concept of stress or
internal force, which consists of a pair of opposite forces of
equal magnitude acting on the opposite surfaces of any imagined
cut through the material or structure. This concept is so
central to the discipline of structural mechanics and selfevident
to structural engineers that Newton’s third law is
never even mentioned in publications."



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Notice "according to the law of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed; hence this energy cannot disappear. INSTEAD IT IS STORED AS POTENTIAL ENERGY."

So in a loose-about-way one can say the kinetic energy being released from the top mass of the falling building is being countered by the "potential energy" of the lower building at rest.


No.

Potential energy was released and converted into kinetic energy.

The kinetic energy of the falling top is resisted by the first stationary floor's inertia, and some of that kinetic energy is used up, resulting in less kinetic energy at the time of impact.

But the first stationary floor also had potential energy, which was converted into kinetic energy once it began moving downward, and thusly, kinetic energy was once again increased.

This is the part you do not understand.

Potential energy in a gravity event can only act in one direction.

DOWN.


I already said I think he meant INERTIA and he picked the wrong term. It does not mean the rest of his analysis was flawed. It simply means he picked the wrong term.


Yep, inertia is a better term.

But the analysis is flawed cuz it uses incredulity rather than sound physics backed by numbers.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ANOK

Once again for those who fail to understand the laws of motion, when two objects collide the forces on each object is equal, equal and opposite in direction.



I'll just repost this, since you ignored it.

Towhich, Bazant has indeed stated so very eloquently:

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

"As explained at the outset in every course on
mechanics of materials, this law is automatically satisfied,
since all the calculations are based on the concept of stress or
internal force, which consists of a pair of opposite forces of
equal magnitude acting on the opposite surfaces of any imagined
cut through the material or structure. This concept is so
central to the discipline of structural mechanics and selfevident
to structural engineers that Newton’s third law is
never even mentioned in publications."


So how does Bazant violate Newton's 3rd Law by Having the upper block crush the lower without sustaining damage to itself in the process? So how can 15 stories destroy 94 when the 94 have to get stronger and heavier all of the way down?

psik



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Check this vid I just made. Check out the sway. I am not saying anything odd happened I am just in awe.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

This is high school physics but it should be taught in grade school because it is that easy. People deal with physics every day. This pretense that it is difficult it ridiculous.

psik


And yet, we see truthers (such as ANOK) saying that the PE ofthe upper part of the tower is zero.

Now certainly, you MUST AGREE that anyone that has ever made that statement is severely lacking in knowledge, right?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Show me the floors still in the footprints of the towers.

Unless you can do that your claims are nonsense.


The rational claim:

1- is that according to dust studies, appx 1/3 of the concret was lost as dust during the collapse.

2- the ext columns mostly peeled away from the towers and neither added to the collapsing mass nor was able to provide any resistance since they were not buckled or crushed.

3- the core columns were mostly bypassed by the falling mass as evidenced by the many core columns seen in the various "spire videos". This mass was unable to add to the collapse nor did it provide any resistance to it.

4- any floor mass not accounted for in the dust studies - which includes losses of ceiling tile, drywall, and SFRM - would be logically inside the footprint during the descent, and there indeed both photos and testimony from Ground Zero workers of cutting away the ext columns and finding many floors "pancaked" together. Gage even has a photo of this in his presentation.

5- any claims of "most of the floors mass was ejected during the collapse", or in your case that "the entire building was ejected during the collapse" must therefore be rejected until there is some backup to those claims.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ANOK

Once again for those who fail to understand the laws of motion, when two objects collide the forces on each object is equal, equal and opposite in direction.



I'll just repost this, since you ignored it.

Towhich, Bazant has indeed stated so very eloquently:

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

"As explained at the outset in every course on
mechanics of materials, this law is automatically satisfied,
since all the calculations are based on the concept of stress or
internal force, which consists of a pair of opposite forces of
equal magnitude acting on the opposite surfaces of any imagined
cut through the material or structure. This concept is so
central to the discipline of structural mechanics and selfevident
to structural engineers that Newton’s third law is
never even mentioned in publications."


So how does Bazant violate Newton's 3rd Law by Having the upper block crush the lower without sustaining damage to itself in the process? So how can 15 stories destroy 94 when the 94 have to get stronger and heavier all of the way down?

psik


I'll just repost this, since you ignored it.

Towhich, Bazant has indeed stated so very eloquently:

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

"As explained at the outset in every course on
mechanics of materials, this law is automatically satisfied,
since all the calculations are based on the concept of stress or
internal force, which consists of a pair of opposite forces of
equal magnitude acting on the opposite surfaces of any imagined
cut through the material or structure. This concept is so
central to the discipline of structural mechanics and selfevident
to structural engineers that Newton’s third law is
never even mentioned in publications."



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Explosives are not reliable after a certain point due to corrosion of materials, and there is danger of accidental detonation if they are radio-operated. There would have to be hard-wired demolitions which are serviced frequently, and there is no history of that. Someone would have talked about servicing them, since you can't do so without knowing what you're doing.


So you are saying no tall rise building recently constructed comes with built-in explosives? Can you prove this OPINION anymore than I can prove my opinion to you? Think about worse case scenario here, some huge earthquake/big hurricane/etc hitting those towers and they topping over. Do you REALLY THINK city hall would not take this into consideration during the planning stage? I think NOT!

Also think trade secret here, non-disclosure agreements signed and what not, which means only the architect and appropriate city personal know the actual blueprints. Sure you might dig some "blueprint" copies but it would not be the original.

To be blunt I don't think everyone knows WHAT THEY THINK THEY KNOW!



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Um, what? There has never been a skyscraper built (that I can find) that has ever had explosives built into the design. That would be dangerous as hell, in the case of an accidental detonation. What kind of insane architect would do such a thing???

Your speculation needs to be backed up by evidence, dude. This is getting ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Oh I understand more than you would like me to understand. 15-20 floors CANNOT take down the 80 floors beneath them. Not enough weight/mass! If the damage to those upper floors was substantial enough then those damaged floors would have severed off from the undamaged floors and toppled over into the streets of manhattan.

Thats NOT what happened. In fact offcials were probably waiting to see how bad the damage was before calling for the explosives to go off. WTF is the big deal with the explosives anyway??? I already said this does not prove inside job one bit cause a lot tall rise buildings have them pre-installed just in case for emergencies.

I think alqueda did it! Are you happy now?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Would you please list the skyscrapers with built-in explosives? I have never heard of such a thing.

Also, from my research, it seems like 20 floors certainly can cause the destruction of the entire tower. It's called a progressive collapse. The mass above collects mass as it collapses down one floor at a time, becoming heavier with each floor and accelerating in the spaces between floors until it reaches terminal velocity (which, of course, it didn't). The collapse makes complete sense if you stop yelling impossible at the top of your lungs within your mind. It's only impossible to you because you have faith that it is. You've never seen anything like 9/11 ever happen in the history of high rises. Give me one friggin example and I'll leave it be.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


It makes no difference to me what people believe. I DO RECALL hearing this on more than one occassion and I think the petronas towers in malaysia as well taiwan 101 have them built in. Nothing scary at all about this cause I am sure the people who install them know what they are doing. And they would not corrode if installed in concrete, just like rebar does not corrode.

I have worked on several small time construction sites, so I am not entirely ignorant of the building process.
edit on 10/13/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


i think what people are trying to say is that a metal building would fall towards the weakened side. the side the plane hit. the fact this didn't happen (on both towers) raises questions.

all the floors were designed to hold up its own weight. so even if the metal structures were weakened by fire, it would still take some time before each subsequent floor should fall. especially fall on itself. it would take some time for the fire to travel down each flight of stairs to the next. then the fire would have to burn all metal, carpet, desks etc. and them move on the the next floor. so let us say indeed the buildings were designed to pancake on itself. it would take some time for each floor to melt enough to warrant a total collapse. the rapid rate of fall by both towers is another reason for people to question if there is more to this than what we are being told.

of course no one has the "answer". for every post citing an "authority" supporting one theory, the next guy can post citing an "authority" supporting the opposing theory.

all i have is questions.

i get from your post that you are like to rest of us. we want to know the truth.

-subfab



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join