Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

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

log in

join

posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
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.


OK great, not an expert. Just a truther. You made the statement that people should know about demolition before speaking about it as if you're the expert. I asked you a simple question: "What method was used to bring down the towers?" And you say there was no method. It doesn't matter. Huh? Really? So clearly you're not capable of presenting a workable hypothesis of how this was done, but you want people to believe that thermite and explosives were used to bring down two 110 story towers from the top down. Can you even speculate what was used to ignite the thermite though out the towers??



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'.


The collapses of both towers initiated right at the impact zones. Not above not below but precisely at the impact zones. Any video will show this. THIS in of itself is sufficient proof of structural failure due to the crashes of those planes and subsequent fire damage. ( north tower, fast forward to 2:40 , south tower collapses at point of impact ) You hate that theory, I know.

But from your standpoint- (since the collapses occurred right at the point of impact), this would mean that explosives and or thermite would've had to have been placed in those precise floors BEFORE the impacts. Why didn't the crash ignite all the explosives? I know, you've been asked this already.


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.


Way to skirt the question. You seem to be very hung up on this gravity couldn't have brought them down. Once the collapse starts, what do you propose is causing it to fall if not done by gravity alone? Can you provide a case study that supports your assertion?


'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.


Spoken like a true expert.


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


Very disappointing.

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




posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


ANOK's position is easily summarised

Either

- Because of the way ANOK understands physics, nefarious people (he doesn't know who) employed other malcontents (he doesn't know who) to plant some form of explosive (he doesn't know what kind) over a period of time (he has no idea how long) somehow avoiding the security of the WTC (he can't say how) and overcoming the myriad practical difficulties associated with such a difficult task (he doesn't understand how). These mysterious explosives somehow detonated at the point of impact (he can't explain how this is possible) and either disappeared without trace or remained strangely uncombusted (he can't say which or why)

or

- ANOK doesn't understand physics.


I know which my money is on.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


In ANOK's defense, it's not just him. He's merely a representative of the entire "truther" movement belief system. A belief system that seems to be derived from baseless assertions and complete ignorance I'm afraid.

I don't understand how someone can tell folks that those fuel laden jets didn't in any way compromise those buildings, or at least play a role in the collapse, and then expect to be taken seriously. Especially when the collapses initiated right at the point of impact.

And we're the crazy fools.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
This thread has been hijacked by self centered OSers ... its as simple as that, good evidence has been put forward by so called "truthers" yet you gang up on them and stroke eachothers egos, its YOUR fault theres no REAL investigation , because all you do is cling to the O.S , prove its not BS by quoting and highlighting facts that support the OS , and ill SHOW YOU why it is BS, im sitting on the smoking gun ... who wants to take me up on this ? oh large minded OSers (who clearly have no idea how buildings are constructed)
yes ... its me ... big woop ... i want to know who can actually provide PROOF that NIST did not lie ... c`mon , you all seem confident enough .... lets go .... dont go bitchin to admin like a puss , just prove it.

four pc`s and 2 laptops so admin ....



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft
This thread has been hijacked by self centered OSers ... its as simple as that, good evidence has been put forward by so called "truthers" yet you gang up on them and stroke eachothers egos, its YOUR fault theres no REAL investigation , because all you do is cling to the O.S , prove its not BS by quoting and highlighting facts that support the OS , and ill SHOW YOU why it is BS, im sitting on the smoking gun ... who wants to take me up on this ? oh large minded OSers (who clearly have no idea how buildings are constructed)
yes ... its me ... big woop ... i want to know who can actually provide PROOF that NIST did not lie ... c`mon , you all seem confident enough .... lets go .... dont go bitchin to admin like a puss , just prove it.

four pc`s and 2 laptops so admin ....


Silly Truther your back again. Are you going for the banned record. Currently it's held by none other than Rob "Captain Bobby Socks" Balsamo. He won't be easy to beat. Just for the record I'm not the one turning you in to the admin. I like you. Your funny and you add to the low IQ image the truth movement has. So whats the smoking gun your sitting on, hurry before you get banned again.
edit on 25-10-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by EleninPfft
This thread has been hijacked by self centered OSers ... its as simple as that, good evidence has been put forward by so called "truthers" yet you gang up on them and stroke eachothers egos, its YOUR fault theres no REAL investigation , because all you do is cling to the O.S , prove its not BS by quoting and highlighting facts that support the OS , and ill SHOW YOU why it is BS, im sitting on the smoking gun ... who wants to take me up on this ? oh large minded OSers (who clearly have no idea how buildings are constructed)
yes ... its me ... big woop ... i want to know who can actually provide PROOF that NIST did not lie ... c`mon , you all seem confident enough .... lets go .... dont go bitchin to admin like a puss , just prove it.

four pc`s and 2 laptops so admin ....


Silly Truther your back again. Are you going for the banned record. Currently it's held by none other than Rob "Captain Bobby Socks" Balsamo. He won't be easy to beat. Just for the record I'm not the one turning you in to the admin. I like you. Your funny and you add to the low IQ image the truth movement has. So whats the smoking gun your sitting on, hurry before you get banned again.
edit on 25-10-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)


Prove to me why the OS is the truth and ill DESTROY you with the smoking gun... its as simple as that ... starting ... now



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

That is a common engineering structure, vertical columns cross braced. Tie 47 broom sticks together with cross bracing, they will stand by themselves.



It would only be possible if the core beam to core column connectionc were moment connections.

But they weren't.

And that would only be possible for an intact core.

And clearly, the "spire " core columns were NOT intact. Therefore, it is delusional to make this claim.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK
which makes it as strong as the steel itself.


Definitely not true.


You want to put a bet on that mate?



The connection can only be as strong as the base metal. Your own link supports that.

But that would only be true for a butt weld that was to full depth penetration. For a fillet weld, the formula provided in your links show how to determine that.

Now, in order for your statement to progress beyond the theoretical, you must give evidence that butt welds were to full depth, and that fillet welds were done in a manner that makes sure the connections were as strong as the base steel.

Until then, the observables show that core columns broke at the connections, in some cases very cleanly, with little to no core column distortion, proving that the connections were in fact the weakest part.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft

Prove to me why the OS is the truth and ill DESTROY you with the smoking gun... its as simple as that ... starting ... now


The Only Sane explanation is true because : Force does in fact equal Mass x Acceleration, And the 19 hijackers are dead. Happy ? Now lift up your butt and pull out whatever it is you're sitting on.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by EleninPfft

Prove to me why the OS is the truth and ill DESTROY you with the smoking gun... its as simple as that ... starting ... now


The Only Sane explanation is true because : Force does in fact equal Mass x Acceleration, And the 19 hijackers are dead. Happy ? Now lift up your butt and pull out whatever it is you're sitting on.




11:
Waleed M. Alshehri - Alive
Wail M. Alshehri - Alive
Abdulaziz Alomari - Alive

175:
Mohand Alshehri - Alive

77:
Salem Alhazmi - Alive

93 :
Saeed Alghamdi - Alive
Ahmed Alnami - Alive

ready to provide FACTS O.Ser ? c`mon ... show your knowladge for once , dont just create your own BS as usual.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

They simply took out the core and allowed it to collapse



Well, well, well. It looks like there's progress here. Finally.

this is an admission that once initiated, the collapse can progress due to gravity alone.....

Although I'm also quite sure that ANOK will now make some silly claim about reading comprehension, etc.

Too late kid. Ya slipped up and admitted to it.

Now if you would just admit to the fact that your previous signature line admitted that you don't necessarily believe what you post here, which is a de facto admission to trolling, then the rest of the truthers here would understand just how bad you're "punking" them.....



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

I have never claimed to be an expert, this is all common sense


Common sense isn't common, nor is it a sense.


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.


It is a fact. No moment connections in the core floor beams.


you need to explain why the core also collapsed


Initiation - plane impact and fire damage

spires - no moment connections, nor are they intact.


the majority of the weight the buildings peeled 'like a banana'.


The ext columns were in no way the majority of the weight.


it's impossible that it was from gravity alone, as has been explained ad nauseum.


Repeating a falsehood ad nauseum does not suddenly make it true.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


you use the exact same dissecting tactic as another poster ... tell me OSer ... how could the core of each building collapse ? how did the penthouse fall through tower 7 before it collapsed ? FIRE !!!???




posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft


11:
Waleed M. Alshehri - Alive
Wail M. Alshehri - Alive
Abdulaziz Alomari - Alive

175:
Mohand Alshehri - Alive

77:
Salem Alhazmi - Alive

93 :
Saeed Alghamdi - Alive
Ahmed Alnami - Alive

ready to provide FACTS O.Ser ? c`mon ... show your knowladge for once , dont just create your own BS as usual.


Not a single one has been seen alive after the morning of sept 11.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


yeah you just keep believing that ............ got your FACTS yet ? c`mon ... prove NIST wasnt lying.
2nd



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft

how could the core of each building collapse ? how did the penthouse fall through tower 7 before it collapsed ? FIRE !!!???



WHy yes, of course.

Surely you don't deny that fire has bad effects on structural steel?

For to do so totally invalidates the fact that fire protection science is very important for buildings. Why, I bet you didn't know that the building that caught fire in Bejing was built using standards and recommendations as a result of the study of 7 - no long span beams, connections that were able to resist the effects of thermal expansion, etc. These are structural issues that were learned about as a result of 9/11.

And guess what? The lessons learned were applied, and they worked!!

All the incredulity expressed by the meme - no other buildings have collapsed due to fire, etc, isn't proof that it's impossible. It's proof that fire protection science and the engineers that practice it are very good at their job.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by EleninPfft

how could the core of each building collapse ? how did the penthouse fall through tower 7 before it collapsed ? FIRE !!!???



WHy yes, of course.

Surely you don't deny that fire has bad effects on structural steel?

For to do so totally invalidates the fact that fire protection science is very important for buildings. Why, I bet you didn't know that the building that caught fire in Bejing was built using standards and recommendations as a result of the study of 7 - no long span beams, connections that were able to resist the effects of thermal expansion, etc. These are structural issues that were learned about as a result of 9/11.

And guess what? The lessons learned were applied, and they worked!!

All the incredulity expressed by the meme - no other buildings have collapsed due to fire, etc, isn't proof that it's impossible. It's proof that fire protection science and the engineers that practice it are very good at their job.


*facepalm* ... why havnt they changed the way they build steel high rises then ?
And no ... kerosene can not reach the temperatures required to melt steel, which would have been needed for the towers to callapse at that rate ..... look into it before throwing BS around.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by EleninPfft
reply to post by waypastvne
 


yeah you just keep believing that ............ got your FACTS yet ? c`mon ... prove NIST wasnt lying.
2nd



You should start a fake Facebook page for Saeed Alghamdi. At least then you'd have some fake evidence one of them was still alive, instead of no evidence at all.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Wheres your FACTS ?
And do you really expect me to believe you got a star seconds after posting that ?
you OSers are ridiculous ....... c`mon OSer , prove NIST did not lie , you can quote NIST too just to be fair ... c`mon.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 60  61  62    64  65 >>

log in

join