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

page: 62
17
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Well then since you're the demo expert- what technique was employed to bring down the towers?



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


I thought you were all the experts? You won't except anything a 'truther' tries to tell you.

There was no collapse 'method' for the towers. They simply took out the core and allowed it to collapse, not much else they could do.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
If controlled demo using explosives were used, as you and your friends assert, then why is the concrete core still standing for some 15sec after the perimeters of the north tower have completely crumbled around it. That core is at least 30 stories tall at that point.


Whoa wait a minute, a concrete core?

There used to be a lot of discussion on whether the towers had a concrete core. The OSers saying there wasn't and some 'truthers' speculating perhaps there was. Why do you think there was?


I spoke incorrectly. The core was composed almost entirely of steel.


But regardless, why would that indicate it wasn't a controlled demolition? The way a controlled demolition works is dependent on where, and when, the 'explosives' are detonated. Many controlled demo's do not go as exactly planned. It is not a black and white event.


Well, since you're the expert. Wouldn't large amounts of explosives have been needed around the core (regardless of what it's composed of) all up and down to initiate and sustain the collapse as needed to support your theory? Yet for at least 15sec after the entire collapse of the N Tower 50 stories of the core remained standing as if untouched by any explosives. 40 stories of the S Tower remained standing. Shouldn't the cores have been obliterated by explosives?


The real question is if that was the steel core, why did it continue to collapse after the floors did? The core didn't need the floors to hold it up, so please don't make that silly assertion, no one is buying it. You still need to explain how the core collapsed at all through an increasing mass.


I don't recall ever asserting the core needed the floors to hold it up. The core seemed to have withstood the collapse for several moments until it finally gave way amidst all the heavy destruction around it.

Maybe the question should be should the incremental increase in mass of the core have been sufficient enough to withstand the head on downward force of all the collapsing mass from above? Isn't it reasonable to think that this structural system was not designed to withstand a dynamic load of this nature?

To add a couple more questions:

You truthers want us all to believe that two completely uncommon methods of demolition were used to bring down the towers- Use of thermite and top-down demo. Funny when googling these terms in conjunction with controlled demo nothing but 9/11 conspiracy theories come up...

Why the need to use thermite if explosives would've been enough? And why not use the same sort of method used in previous demo's of towers. Bottom up. Why risk doing it in a way that's never been done before?


edit on 22-10-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


I thought you were all the experts? You won't except anything a 'truther' tries to tell you.

There was no collapse 'method' for the towers. They simply took out the core and allowed it to collapse, not much else they could do.


They took out the core??? That's precisely what I'm arguing here. They DIDN'T take it out...

As I mentioned in my previous post- both cores remained standing for several moments AFTER the collapse. If there were explosives around the core then why did they still stand un-obliterated? at least 50 stories of it?

And how can you say there was no method to take down these huge structures? You clearly don't understand controlled demolition then. It would've taken a highly skilled group and very precise and strategic deployment of charges through out the entire WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7- or about 270 stories worth....
edit on 22-10-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


I thought you were all the experts? You won't except anything a 'truther' tries to tell you.

There was no collapse 'method' for the towers. They simply took out the core and allowed it to collapse, not much else they could do.


They took out the core??? That's precisely what I'm arguing here. They DIDN'T take it out...

As I mentioned in my previous post- both cores remained standing for several moments AFTER the collapse. If there were explosives around the core then why did they still stand un-obliterated? at least 50 stories of it?

And how can you say there was no method to take down these huge structures? You clearly don't understand controlled demolition then. It would've taken a highly skilled group and very precise and strategic deployment of charges through out the entire WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7- or about 270 stories worth....
edit on 22-10-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)


why did that post get a star ?


cant you see the problem there ?



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ReptileRipper
 


No, I don't. Care to indulge? Because I'd love to hear your thoughts.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


*cough* what happened to the cores ?



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

I spoke incorrectly. The core was composed almost entirely of steel.


Freudian slip lol?


Well, since you're the expert. Wouldn't large amounts of explosives have been needed around the core (regardless of what it's composed of) all up and down to initiate and sustain the collapse as needed to support your theory? Yet for at least 15sec after the entire collapse of the N Tower 50 stories of the core remained standing as if untouched by any explosives. 40 stories of the S Tower remained standing. Shouldn't the cores have been obliterated by explosives?


Stop with the patronizing nonsense, I have never claimed to be an expert, this is all common sense stuff mate for anyone with an engineering background. You are the ones who pretend to be experts about stuff because you read it somewhere and never bothered to check if it's in fact true.


I don't recall ever asserting the core needed the floors to hold it up. The core seemed to have withstood the collapse for several moments until it finally gave way amidst all the heavy destruction around it.


You didn't have to, the OS consensus is the core could not hold itself up without lateral support from the floors, it is the general excuse for the core collapsing. Because if the pancake hypothesis was fact you need to explain why the core also collapsed, and in fact started collapsing first as evidenced by the antenna of WTC 2 dropping before the floors (the antenna sat on top of the *hat truss* at the top of the core). That is the proof that the core was what was compromised, and as it supported the majority of the weight the buildings peeled 'like a banana'.

*



To add a couple more questions:

You truthers want us all to believe that two completely uncommon methods of demolition were used to bring down the towers- Use of thermite and top-down demo. Funny when googling these terms in conjunction with controlled demo nothing but 9/11 conspiracy theories come up...


lol the method of demolition is irrelevant, the proof is not in the method of demolition, but in the fact there is no other choice because it's impossible that it was from gravity alone, as has been explained ad nauseum. You guys just seem to have a problem putting it all together, whether purposely or not.

'Controlled demolition' is just a term, you take it too literally. Any collapse that is done by Humans is a controlled demolition. In the context of this debate 'controlled' just means 'not natural', as in from fire and gravity.


Why the need to use thermite if explosives would've been enough? And why not use the same sort of method used in previous demo's of towers. Bottom up. Why risk doing it in a way that's never been done before?


I don't know, you need to ask the people who did it.



edit on 10/22/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Demolitions USE gravity to complete a collapse. Many demolitions only initiate a collapse, while most simply make sure absolutely every component in the building that holds support is broken. Gravity is still the driving force in the destruction.

To say that gravity cannot have any effect on a collapse is just ridiculous. Of course once a collapse is started, gravity will have an effect. It is what demolitions USE.


I hope you can prove conclusively that the towers would have arrested before completely collapsing. Otherwise your point is pure speculation covered in gravy.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


he did say "gravity alone" ... sooooo


Hows things ? figured out what you beleive yet ?

Red Pill or Blue Pill ?



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK
 


Demolitions USE gravity to complete a collapse. Many demolitions only initiate a collapse, while most simply make sure absolutely every component in the building that holds support is broken. Gravity is still the driving force in the destruction.


Yes after the structure is weakened. You can not make any steel framed building collapse simply by dropping 20% of its mass.


To say that gravity cannot have any effect on a collapse is just ridiculous. Of course once a collapse is started, gravity will have an effect. It is what demolitions USE.


I never said gravity has no effect. You want to think gravity can overcome resistance and cause the laws of motion to not have any effect. That is nonsense.


I hope you can prove conclusively that the towers would have arrested before completely collapsing. Otherwise your point is pure speculation covered in gravy.


So how can I do that to your satisfaction? You obviously refuse to accept known physics in order to maintain your fantasies. The physics proves the towers could not have completely collapsed from gravity, you have yet to prove it can. Sorry but even NIST didn't make that attempt, are you smarter than the NIST research group? Why are you not asking why they didn't complete the investigation? If you really think the NIST report is complete, and not full of holes, then you have no credibility as a independent observer of it imo. You might as well have read 'My Pet Goat' for what you understood of it.

You don't realise that your claims are nothing but speculation, because their is nothing in the OS that even supports your claims. There is no proof ANYWHERE that the towers completely collapsed from gravity alone.
Everything that happened after the collapse initiation is made up by you guys, NIST rejected the pancake collapse hypothesis because even they realised how stupid that was, and knew nobody would buy it.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


NIST rejected pancake collapse as the "initiator" of the collapse. It was still the main method of collapse afterward. Horizontal support systems simply cannot take that kind of vertical loading.

Now, we can argue back and forth all day, but your empty claims about "your" physics being correct and proof of collapse being impossible is simply not helpful. You can yell up and down the street all night long saying that the physics wouldn't allow it, but you could be wrong. That is a fact that all scientists accept. We can ALWAYS be wrong.

I'm willing to look at new data and experiments. You, on the other hand, seem to be glued to your hypothesis that the physics of resistance and energy absorption would have slowed the collapse to a halt.

It is only rhetoric to say 20% destroyed 80%. Only one floor at a time was destroyed, so it was kind of along the lines of 20% destroying 10%, and then 30% destroying 10%, and then 40% destroying 10% and so on, minus of course whatever fell outside of the collapsing mass. The point is that the mass increases as it collapses because the collapsed floors do not disintegrate. They add onto the initial mass. This is why it is called progressive.
edit on 22-10-2011 by Varemia because: flip-flopped is/it to make sense



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

NIST rejected pancake collapse as the "initiator" of the collapse. It was still the main method of collapse afterward. Horizontal support systems simply cannot take that kind of vertical loading.


Where are you getting this nonsense? GenRadek said exactly the same thing almost word for word, hmmmm? Reading from the same script as you make money for anthropology classes hmmm lol? (just joking mate don't get in a twist)

'Pancake collapse' is not an initiator, it is the result of a collapse initiation. Something has to initiate a pancake collapse.

Also NIST rejected 'pancake collapse' period. They failed to supply any collapse theory period, all this pancaking nonsense has been made up by people afterwords on damned fool conspiracy websites, and you lap it up lol.

So no, sorry but you are incorrect.


NIST’s findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.


You don't even know the report you're supporting.


Actually what you are arguing for is nothing but Bazants paper, not the official story, or the NIST report.

James Gourley Published in "The Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

edit on 10/22/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I did some thinking and a little researching, and this is the most important part of that statement:


Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.


It appears that NIST was not referring to pancake collapse in the way that you might assume. They meant a very technical version of pancaking which involved removing the connection of the floor beams with the outer columns in order to initiate collapse. They showed that the beams sagged inward for the most part rather than broke. Still, the point still holds that the upper mass overcame and included the increased mass of each destroyed floor.


" ... As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.


www.nist.gov...

I rest my case?
edit on 22-10-2011 by Varemia because: oops, typo





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join