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: 39
17
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


Do you mean to say that you think that the falling mass of the floors would have focused their weight on the columns? That doesn't make sense at all...


Yes it does make sense. Thats why columns and a central core exist! To take the weight of the building and provide support and balance. Its a no brainer dude.


exactly , but the dude was wrong , thats not what i was saying
OSers




posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


Do you mean to say that you think that the falling mass of the floors would have focused their weight on the columns? That doesn't make sense at all...


Yes it does make sense. Thats why columns and a central core exist! To take the weight of the building and provide support and balance. Its a no brainer dude.


That's incorrect. The columns are designed to support the weight of the columns resting on top of them. There's no physical way that the floors could focus their weight on those vertical points once the collapse began. All the weight would be distributed onto horizontal connections, and those are not designed for dynamic vertical load.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


But isn't your theory equally silly? How could all those explosives survive the plane impacts and at least one hour of uncontrolled fires in the towers, and up to 6 hours of uncontrolled fires in WTC7? Beside practical issues, the whole idea is silly. What do you think will happen to the people responsible when those charges go off by accident? What is the motive for anyone to take such risks? And don't you think it is a bit dangerous that so many construction workers do all kind of construction work (like welding) in buildings loaded with explosives without them knowing about it?

Sorry, but your whole theory is[SNIP].
edit on 14-10-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/14/2011 by tothetenthpower because: --Mod Edit--Profanity



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


Do you mean to say that you think that the falling mass of the floors would have focused their weight on the columns? That doesn't make sense at all...


Yes it does make sense. Thats why columns and a central core exist! To take the weight of the building and provide support and balance. Its a no brainer dude.


That's incorrect. The columns are designed to support the weight of the columns resting on top of them. There's no physical way that the floors could focus their weight on those vertical points once the collapse began. All the weight would be distributed onto horizontal connections, and those are not designed for dynamic vertical load.


BS! That would defeat the purpose of having columns and a central core. Try again.........



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


My oh my

2nd



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


I have used this analogy before but I think it explains the issue quite well. If you try to throw a stool from 2 meter hight on a stool that is on the ground upside down, what are the chances that the legs of one stool exactly hit the legs of the other stool, without falling off? They are astronomically low. If you do not believe me, take a day off an try it. In case of the WTC tower we know for sure that the columns did not fall on each other, because the top tilted. That made it physically impossible.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


Do you mean to say that you think that the falling mass of the floors would have focused their weight on the columns? That doesn't make sense at all...


Yes it does make sense. Thats why columns and a central core exist! To take the weight of the building and provide support and balance. Its a no brainer dude.


That's incorrect. The columns are designed to support the weight of the columns resting on top of them. There's no physical way that the floors could focus their weight on those vertical points once the collapse began. All the weight would be distributed onto horizontal connections, and those are not designed for dynamic vertical load.


BS! That would defeat the purpose of having columns and a central core. Try again.........


Um, no, the point of columns in the central core is to give the building a strong central support system which would act as an anchor for the outer columns. Trusses connected the core to the outer walls. Once the upper section begins to fall, the floors are no longer exerting force directly on the core columns. It's ridiculous to say that they would. Plus, once floor connections are broken, a pulling force would occur, causing many core columns to become bent and adding mass into the collapsing upper building.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


I have used this analogy before but I think it explains the issue quite well. If you try to throw a stool from 2 meter hight on a stool that is on the ground upside down, what are the chances that the legs of one stool exactly hit the legs of the other stool, without falling off? They are astronomically low. If you do not believe me, take a day off an try it. In case of the WTC tower we know for sure that the columns did not fall on each other, because the top tilted. That made it physically impossible.


YES the top TILTED , so why did it disintegrate ? along with everything below it ? hmmmmm ? weird collapse to say the least.

Anyone .... provide a link to a "collapse" exactly like the twin towers in every way which didnt include controlled demo... and i`ll suck a monkey`s giblets !
edit on 14-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


No. I don't think its unsafe to have explosives pre-set in concrete because they cannot corrode and are isolated from external forces. Besides the fact there are all types of explosives available to experts, with many being classified.

No amount of heat from fires, accidental drilling, whatever would set them off. If you think explosives are inheritantly dangerous then perhaps you should watch how long it takes military bombs to cook and explode. It takes a long time.

Emergencies can happen were it would be a good idea to implode a building rather than have it topple over into other buildings and cause absolute chaos. When you thing about it, it starts to make sense. Of course the government would not go around advertising it cause people would fear working in such buildings from a psychological factor alone.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


I have used this analogy before but I think it explains the issue quite well. If you try to throw a stool from 2 meter hight on a stool that is on the ground upside down, what are the chances that the legs of one stool exactly hit the legs of the other stool, without falling off? They are astronomically low. If you do not believe me, take a day off an try it. In case of the WTC tower we know for sure that the columns did not fall on each other, because the top tilted. That made it physically impossible.


YES the top TILTED , so why did it disintegrate ? along with everything below it ? hmmmmm ? weird collapse to say the least.

Anyone .... provide a link to a "collapse" exactly like the twin towers in every way which didnt include controlled demo... and i`ll suck a monkey`s giblets !
edit on 14-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)


Pivot physics:



The floors were dropping/being crushed as the top tilted, so it no longer had a pivot point to achieve parabolic momentum.

Also, I haven't seen any collapse even through controlled demolition that looks like the towers unless you count the French verinage method, which uses no explosives.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


so ............... it was "pulled" ?

2nd



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

You are making the truther movement look more silly then it needs to be!



Says the guy that thinks there are explosives incorporated into buildings when they are built.

It's pure madness to suggest that....



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by -PLB-
 


No. I don't think its unsafe to have explosives pre-set in concrete because they cannot corrode and are isolated from external forces. Besides the fact there are all types of explosives available to experts, with many being classified.

No amount of heat from fires, accidental drilling, whatever would set them off. If you think explosives are inheritantly dangerous then perhaps you should watch how long it takes military bombs to cook and explode. It takes a long time.

Emergencies can happen were it would be a good idea to implode a building rather than have it topple over into other buildings and cause absolute chaos. When you thing about it, it starts to make sense. Of course the government would not go around advertising it cause people would fear working in such buildings from a psychological factor alone.


This is sheer fantasy on your part, EC. You're leaving reality behind. It's not too late to go back. Bombs are not a safety feature. Loading up all tall buildings with explosives during construction could not have remained a secret for 50 years. You have no reason to believe this insane theory. You're better than this, man.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia
 


so ............... it was "pulled" ?

2nd


Only if they somehow got massive cables or hydraulic charges up on the floors of the plane impacts. It seems kind of unlikely, in my opinion.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


Do you mean to say that you think that the falling mass of the floors would have focused their weight on the columns? That doesn't make sense at all...


Yes it does make sense. Thats why columns and a central core exist! To take the weight of the building and provide support and balance. Its a no brainer dude.


Stuff falls on floors, right?

So then the only way for the columns to resist the total falling mass is for:

1- every floor be able to resist the dynamic load of the entire building above it

and

2- the connections being equally as strong.

This is madness to suggest that any engineer would do that....



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


It didn't disintegrate.

Here is a video of a collapse without use of any explosives that looks a lot like the WTC collapse:

www.youtube.com...

Now to return the favor, but with less strict conditions: Show me a video where explosives were used to demolish a building that looks remotely like the WTC tower collapses. It should at least look more like the WTC collapse than mine.
edit on 14-10-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia
 


so ............... it was "pulled" ?

2nd


Only if they somehow got massive cables or hydraulic charges up on the floors of the plane impacts. It seems kind of unlikely, in my opinion.


Hold up ........ unlikely ? this is the people who run EVERYTHING i`m refering to , ( the real criminals ) , nothing is unlikely, i`m no "expert" in demo , or even engineering to be honest, i`m a Joiner by trade (carpenter) , i refurb bars resteraunts and clubs, but even i know that not a single building has collapsed at free fall speed without controlled demo, its an absolute "no brainer" , charges were laid out throughout those buildings, Tower 7 was pulled, it was admitted, so, if there was charges in 7 , why not 1 + 2 ? ?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


That WAS controlled demo.
2nd
3rd



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by -PLB-
 


No. I don't think its unsafe to have explosives pre-set in concrete because they cannot corrode and are isolated from external forces. Besides the fact there are all types of explosives available to experts, with many being classified.

No amount of heat from fires, accidental drilling, whatever would set them off. If you think explosives are inheritantly dangerous then perhaps you should watch how long it takes military bombs to cook and explode. It takes a long time.

Emergencies can happen were it would be a good idea to implode a building rather than have it topple over into other buildings and cause absolute chaos. When you thing about it, it starts to make sense. Of course the government would not go around advertising it cause people would fear working in such buildings from a psychological factor alone.


Lets just be very thankful that you are not in a position to make these kind of decisions and that the people that are decide not to put explosives in buildings.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


Without the use of any explosives. Do you agree that the WTC collapsed without explosives?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join