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.

 

So who the heck ever said "Pull it" was slang for controlled demolitions?

page: 74
17
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.




posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Demigodly
Bombs bombs bombs..they were everywhere. That was the theme. They were used in the twin towers in the lobbies, basements, garages, elevators, and stairwells (to prevent escape and raise the death toll) some before and some after the plane impacts. And they were used at the WTC7.


Really? Any proof?

Or let me guess, "It sounded like a bomb went off." "I heard an explosion." "It sounded like an explosion." Is that the proof?

Allow me to increase your intelligence and word power:
Simile


You sound like a sparkler going off.
There are a multitude of accounts of bombs going off on 911. Are you to engrossed with you stupid damn fool reports that you can't search them?.
I posted at least two fireman saying they heard bombs. One even said it sounded like pop pop pop pop as one of the buildings fell. You KNOW, DEMO CHARGES!!!



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Genxbeyond
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


So at this point, we can agree

1) youve Got me on my terrible Grammar

2) Ive kicked the chit out of you about the topic at hand, and the best you can do against me in the argument is talk about grammar....

Ok I got it.... ill turn my pc of now..


Grammar aside, here is a link to the 130 page NIST report detailing the collapse of WTC building 7. There is a wealth of meticulously detailed information documenting the complete mechanism of the structural damage, fire and subsequent collapse.

You would be doing yourself and your argument a huge favor by educating yourself on the hard facts of the matter at hand before tossing around glib insults.

The only thing you have proven regarding the topic at hand is that you have a poor understanding of exothermic processes and poor internet manners.

Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 Collapse


This is the final report on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), conducted under the National Construction Safety Team Act.

This report describes how the fires that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (the north tower) led to the collapse ofWTC 7; an evaluation of the building evacuation and emergency response procedures; what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the building; and areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.

Extensive details are found in the companion reports, NIST NCST AR 1-9 and NIST NCST AR 1-9A. Also in this report is a summary of how NIST reached its conclusions.

NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.

The report concludes with a list of 13 recommendations for action in the areas of increased structural integrity, enhanced fire endurance of structures, new methods for fire resistant design of structures, enhanced active fire protection, improved emergency response, improved procedures and practices, and education and training.

One ofthese is new; the other 12 are reiterated from the investigation into the collapse of the WTC towers. Each of the 13 is relevant to WTC 7.


Enjoy



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
**** ATTENTION ****

the next off topic or uncivil post will get you post banned.

you have been warned.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Grammar aside, here is a link to the 130 page NIST report detailing the collapse of WTC building 7. There is a wealth of meticulously detailed information documenting the complete mechanism of the structural damage, fire and subsequent collapse.


None of that meticulously detailed information seems to explain how the building collapsed mostly into its own footprint.


You would be doing yourself and your argument a huge favor by educating yourself on the hard facts of the matter at hand before tossing around glib insults.


You would be doing us all a favour if you stopped acting like you know it all, because you don't have the education to know why it fails to explain what we can actually see in post collapse pics.


The only thing you have proven regarding the topic at hand is that you have a poor understanding of exothermic processes and poor internet manners.


All you are proving is that you fail to understand that the "exothermic processes" does not explain the final outcome of the collapse.


This report describes how the fires that followed the impact of debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (the north tower) led to the collapse ofWTC 7; an evaluation of the building evacuation and emergency response procedures; what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the building; and areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.


You think people really have not read that? You really think it answers the questions being asked? If it did then show us the part that explains how the outer walls fell inwards. The resident OSers here keep claiming it leaned to the west, post collapse pics contradict that claim. So how does that report resolve that?




edit on 4/13/2012 by ANOK because: This space for rent, U2U for rates...



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
One even said it sounded like pop pop pop pop as one of the buildings fell. You KNOW, DEMO CHARGES!!!


Demo charges go off BEFORE a building falls....

There is zero evidence for any demo charges on 9/11, just claims by people who do not understand what is involved in demolishing a building using demolition charges.
edit on 13-4-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Anok, you seem to have forgotten that we have previously established that I have both the education and the practical experience to speak with some authority on the matter.

Would you care to rehash a couple of our exchanges regarding either your gross lack in understanding of basic physics or your inexperience in building anything more complex than a bird feeder in high school shop class?

The NIST report perfectly explains the mechanics behind the global collapse of WTC7 as anyone with the necessary education who has read the report will attest. You claiming otherwise because you cannot or do not want to understand does nothing to change that fact.

For anyone following along, here are the highlights of LS-DYNA simulation that from the NIST report.















Try to sell your nonsense to somebody else.

You have proven time and again that you have little understanding and no education in this field.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by ANOK
 


Anok, you seem to have forgotten that we have previously established that I have both the education and the practical experience to speak with some authority on the matter.


Really? Forgotten? Who established that, you?


Would you care to rehash a couple of our exchanges regarding either your gross lack in understanding of basic physics or your inexperience in building anything more complex than a bird feeder in high school shop class?


Go ahead, I'll be waiting. What you think you did and what you actually did are two entirely different things.

How do you know about the bird feeder?



The NIST report perfectly explains the mechanics behind the global collapse of WTC7 as anyone with the necessary education who has read the report will attest. You claiming otherwise because you cannot or do not want to understand does nothing to change that fact.


Again you fail to point out what I asked you to.


Try to sell your nonsense to somebody else.

You have proven time and again that you have little understanding and no education in this field.


I'm not selling anything, if you don't want to read my nonsense then go somewhere else and stop reading my nonsense. It's as easy as that hombre.

Prove that I have no understanding. Where is the proof you understand what I'm talking about and how the WTC7 commission did not explain it and instead made up nonsense like this...



A half blind mute street cleaner could tell you that is not what happened to WTC 7 as it collapsed.

The government putting something in a report does not make it proof, or fact, or even truthful. If all you can do is appeal to authority you have already proven you can't discuss this from your own education.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Everybody knows that what happened to WTC 7 is SBCS.




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Prove that I have no understanding.


We can go into you not understanding the simple concept of sagging trusses exerting a pull force again? Or potential energy pushing up? Or the top section not having any potential energy when attached to the rest of the building?

That all the proves beyond a doubt that you are pretty much clueless.


A half blind mute street cleaner could tell you that is not what happened to WTC 7 as it collapsed.


A brilliant demonstration of your actual understanding of physics: looking at pictures. Next step is learning to read so you know what those pictures show. They show a scenario that did not happen. So your observation is correct, but nobody is claiming differently.

For the record, I must say that this is rather a display of ignorance than not understanding physics.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by ANOK
Prove that I have no understanding.


We can go into you not understanding the simple concept of sagging trusses exerting a pull force again? Or potential energy pushing up? Or the top section not having any potential energy when attached to the rest of the building?

That all the proves beyond a doubt that you are pretty much clueless.


A half blind mute street cleaner could tell you that is not what happened to WTC 7 as it collapsed.


A brilliant demonstration of your actual understanding of physics: looking at pictures. Next step is learning to read so you know what those pictures show. They show a scenario that did not happen. So your observation is correct, but nobody is claiming differently.

For the record, I must say that this is rather a display of ignorance than not understanding physics.


Ummmmm... he says that PE pushes UP??? ANd that there is no PE in relation to the the ground (where the collapses ended)????

Wow....

I'd say that ignorance and not understanding physics, coupled with very healthy doses of arrogance and Dunning-Krueger....



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Hello Dave.
Instead of asking for proof that ''pull it'' means bring the building down, why don't you present some evidence showing how 3 buildings can all fall in their own footprint at the same speed as a controlled demolition just from fire that doesn't burn hot enough to even start melting the metal part of the structure.
In case you forgot - no building in history - let alone 3 - has been brought down by fire alone or as in the case of the Empire State building by being hit by a plane and then catching fire before 9/11/2001.
Not forgetting the fact that most of the fuel in the planes burnt up on impact - that was the reason we all saw huge fireballs OUTSIDE of the building.
I guess its just coincidence that the building containing alot of sensitive information about people who profitted from the fall of the towers got destroyed and not the buildings closer to the impact.
edit on 14-4-2012 by TattooedWarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
We can go into you not understanding the simple concept of sagging trusses exerting a pull force again? Or potential energy pushing up? Or the top section not having any potential energy when attached to the rest of the building?

That all the proves beyond a doubt that you are pretty much clueless.


LOL I have explained this many times.

When steel heats up it expands, do you agree?

When steel expands it gets bigger, do you agree?

When it expands that expansion has to go somewhere, do you agree?

That expansion causes the sagging, do you agree?

That sagging is a result of the steels expansion, do you agree?

If the steel sags due to it's expansion, it's because it has nowhere else to go, do you agree?

So if it sags, because it has nowhere else to go, then where is the pulling force coming from? How are the trusses putting any more force on the columns than it already did.

And the question you all ignore, why didn't the 5/8", and 1", bolts fail before the obvioulsy more massive columns did?

Your part about PE pushing up is just a misunderstanding of what I was trying to explain. What I meant was that there is PE in the lower floors as well as the upper floors. It was in response to your stupid claim that momentum, and PE, was all that mattered, and you ignore the laws of equal opposite reaction and momentum conservation.


A brilliant demonstration of your actual understanding of physics: looking at pictures. Next step is learning to read so you know what those pictures show. They show a scenario that did not happen. So your observation is correct, but nobody is claiming differently.

For the record, I must say that this is rather a display of ignorance than not understanding physics.


Looking at picture? That didn't actually happen? What are you talking about? Stop talking in riddles and show YOUR physics that proves I'm wrong.

From someone who never even attempts to prove he understands physics that is hilarious. You didn't address one of my points, just another failed attempt to discredit. You guys should be put on report, in fact I'd have fired you by now, and got someone who at least can argue points raised. You are doing more to discredit the OS then you are helping it. But then again who would do your job if they weren't desperate for work? How come Mr.Electrical engineer you're not working in your field, or do you get lots of breaks to post on ATS?


Just another lame, failed, attempt to discredit. You're not very good at this PLB.


edit on 4/14/2012 by ANOK because: This space for rent, U2U for rates...



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join