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: 82
17
<< 79  80  81    83  84 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Poor ventilation cooler fire smolders only.
Think draft.



Good thing nobody knocked giant holes in the building right before the fire started, or the fires might have been well ventilated.


Totally ignorant of DRAFT are't you?? Did these tower have CHIMINEYS???
No they did NOT!
Remember even the emergency exits to the roof were LOCKED to insure max loss of life.
Duh




posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Poor ventilation cooler fire smolders only.
Think draft.



Good thing nobody knocked giant holes in the building right before the fire started, or the fires might have been well ventilated.


Totally ignorant of DRAFT are't you?? Did these tower have CHIMINEYS???
No they did NOT!
Remember even the emergency exits to the roof were LOCKED to insure max loss of life.
Duh


Did WTC7 have long corridors and elevator shafts? Were walls breached and windows broken?
As documented in the NIST report, building 7's fires were not that hot.


Remember even the emergency exits to the roof were LOCKED to insure max loss of life.
Duh


Maximum loss of life huh?

Not a soul died at WTC7 on 9/11


edit on 18-4-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: syntax



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Looks like you dropped the ice cream into your Lap.

Explosion happens is a chain reaction that transforms potential energy into kinetic energy. It displaces the surrounding material. Potential energy stored in chemical, mechanical, or nuclear form, is transformed into kinetic energy, acoustic energy, and electromagnetic radiation.

Like this BOOM!!!! pop pop pop, and repeat.

That is how you initiate and accomplish a global collapse.

No I say, no other way. You are totally obtuse and intellectually dishonest with all your tripe.

All you need to know here is Non of the towers ever, ever experienced any kind of total failure that wasn't induces by explosives. The ones witnesses talk about including FIREMEN.

Let's stay with BUILDING SEVEN. Much less complicated.

If a small section of the building is damaged by something, anything and the building does not fall down immediately. That means there is still resistance. If a fire softens steel it may bend a little but never enough to cause an into it's foot print collapse.

The only way to have a near free fall speed collapse is with explosives. You must remove mass not bend it.

The math of momentum proves it.

Obviously you did not read what I posted from wiki.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


The math of momentum proves it.

Obviously you did not read what I posted from wiki.



By all means, show the math.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
You are making no sense trying to make this claim. Sorry again you simply prove you fail to understand lol.


No you simply don't know physics well enough to know what I'm saying.

You could at least attempt to make an argument and state your case instead of simply playing this childish you're wrong game with nothing to back your claims.


You either don't understand the relevance of dynamic load, or you are denying the reality that the WTC towers were hit by planes and burned for over an hour. Else your statement


You don't understand the laws of motion apply to colliding objects, when two objects collide it is a dynamic load.
So no 'dynamic loading does NOT change the laws of motion. That is just ridiculous.

A dynamic load is a force exerted by a moving object on a resisting object. It's obvious that the laws of motion apply to dynamic loads, it can't apply to a static load now can it.



makes completely no sense, as nobody is claiming that just it's own weight caused it to collapse. Make your pick.


Of course you are. What extra weigh was added to cause resistant against collapse to fail? If there was no added weight the tower should have been able to arrest the falling mass of 15 floors way before the collapse was complete. Resistance would have slowed the collapse. Seeing as the collapses didn't slow down means they accelerated against that resistance.


edit on 4/18/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


The math of momentum proves it.

Obviously you did not read what I posted from wiki.



By all means, show the math.



It's right in my avatar. sheeesh!
Stay off the sauce.


edit on 4/18/2012 by longjohnbritches because: f



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Just to get the position of the truthers here straight: you guys think that the observed bowing inward of the perimeter columns was caused by explosives? Please answer "yes" or "no, I think it was caused by ".


Why do you have to try to stereotype?

I personally don't have an opinion on it, other than what didn't cause it, and that was NOT sagging trusses as I have explained many times.

Can you do an experiment PLB? You can PROVE to all of us that a sagging truss, or beam, can pull in the columns they are attached to. Go ahead PLB, put your money where your mouth is and prove to us all this can happen, otherwise you have no argument, because physics and common sense tell us it couldn't happen.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You don't understand the laws of motion apply to colliding objects, when two objects collide it is a dynamic load.
So no 'dynamic loading does NOT change the laws of motion. That is just ridiculous.


Can you, in any way, demonstrate that I don't understand that the law of motion applies to colliding objects? Or can you show where I say that dynamic loading changes the laws of motion?

Nope, you are making stuff up. As always.


Of course you are. What extra weigh was added to cause resistant against collapse to fail? If there was no added weight the tower should have been able to arrest the falling mass of 15 floors way before the collapse was complete.

Resistance would have slowed the collapse. Seeing as the collapses didn't slow down means they accelerated against that resistance.


Look up the concept called "dynamic loading". See how that as result of the top section being in motion, it significantly increases the load on the lower section once it start to offer resistance again.

I will ask the question you keep avoiding again (I think you just don't know the answer). What happens to the momentum of the top section once it starts to move down as result of gravity? Does it increase? Does it stay the same? Does it decrease? Keep in mind conservation of momentum.
edit on 18-4-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Can you, in any way, demonstrate that I don't understand that the law of motion applies to colliding objects? Or can you show where I say that dynamic loading changes the laws of motion?

Nope, you are making stuff up. As always.


Yes, if you think sagging trusses can pull in columns, and cause global collapse, then you don't understand physics.

You are claiming dynamic loading caused the floors to fail, but you ignore the laws of motion, and momentum conservation in your claims. You never even mention those terms unless you are forced to, and then you get it wrong.


Look up the concept called "dynamic loading". See how that as result of the top section being in motion, it significantly increases the load on the lower section once it start to offer resistance again.


Again with the 'dynamic loading'. Again it doesn't matter how much the load was increased, the laws of motion apply to moving objects. The floors were designed to hold far more weight than they did, FoS, they could resist a 'dynamic load'. Even IF they didn't the laws of motion apply and the collapse would have slowed against the resistance of the lower floors. There is not enough energy in a building to overcome its own resistance.

A building must have by design more resistance in its structure, than it has energy to overcome that resistance.
Is that not a true statement? If it wasn't then buildings would not stand in the first place, if they did any extra weight above their own wight would compromise the integrity of the structure.


I will ask the question you keep avoiding again (I think you just don't know the answer). What happens to the momentum of the top section once it starts to move down as result of gravity? Does it increase? Does it stay the same? Does it decrease? Keep in mind conservation of momentum.


It decreases as soon as it hits resistance, that is the conservation of momentum, and why both objects receive the same force, equal opposite reaction, and why BOTH objects would be damaged.


For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

You keep ignoring resistance. Both objects want to maintain their momentum, whether that is 100mph or zero. If there is resistance then there will be a slowing of the momentum, and damage to both objects. The collapsing floors would slow, not speed up. For the collapse to have been complete, and not slow and arrest, it must have accelerated to overcome the slowing cause by the energy required to overcome resistance.

Remember PLB those 5/8" and 1" bolts must have been extremely strong for your sagging truss hypothesis to be true. So you're sort of caught in a contradiction mate. If the connections were stronger than the core columns, then there is no reason a falling floor would cause them to fail. The core columns had far more mass than the floor assemblies.

You keep failing to understand a lot of details and show you have a very shallow grasp on this, enough to make up BS but not enough to argue with someone who knows this stuff.

SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WORLD TRADE CENTER TYPE TRUSSES ARE HEATED?



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yes, if you think sagging trusses can pull in columns, and cause global collapse, then you don't understand physics.


I don't know if they can do that, I just highly suspect they can, and I trust NIST. You do seem to know they can't. Prove it. Using maths.


You are claiming dynamic loading caused the floors to fail, but you ignore the laws of motion, and momentum conservation in your claims. You never even mention those terms unless you are forced to, and then you get it wrong.


No, I am not ignoring it, you either ignore my answer or you don't understand it. Or a combination. But your answer below should be interesting.


Again with the 'dynamic loading'. Again it doesn't matter how much the load was increased, the laws of motion apply to moving objects. The floors were designed to hold far more weight than they did, FoS, they could resist a 'dynamic load'. Even IF they didn't the laws of motion apply and the collapse would have slowed against the resistance of the lower floors. There is not enough energy in a building to overcome its own resistance.

A building must have by design more resistance in its structure, than it has energy to overcome that resistance.
Is that not a true statement? If it wasn't then buildings would not stand in the first place, if they did any extra weight above their own wight would compromise the integrity of the structure.



Show that they could resist the dynamic load if 12+ stories falling on them. I can tell you, a floor can't even hold that load in a static situation. But show the physics. Though we both know that you can't. Physics scares you. Baseless assertions based on your miserable understanding is all we get.


It decreases as soon as it hits resistance, that is the conservation of momentum, and why both objects receive the same force, equal opposite reaction, and why BOTH objects would be damaged.


You didn't understand the question correctly, or your answer is just plain wrong. I will ask again, and give you one more chance.

The top section is not moving. It is in rest. Now because the supporting columns fail, it starts to move. It is being pulled down by gravity. What happens to the momentum once it starts to move? Does it increase? Does it decrease? Or does it stay the same? Keep in mind conservation of momentum.



You keep ignoring resistance. Both objects want to maintain their momentum, whether that is 100mph or zero. If there is resistance then there will be a slowing of the momentum, and damage to both objects. The collapsing floors would slow, not speed up. For the collapse to have been complete, and not slow and arrest, it must have accelerated to overcome the slowing cause by the energy required to overcome resistance.


I am not ignoring anything, but first answer my question, then we can get to resistance.


Remember PLB those 5/8" and 1" bolts must have been extremely strong for your sagging truss hypothesis to be true. So you're sort of caught in a contradiction mate. If the connections were stronger than the core columns, then there is no reason a falling floor would cause them to fail. The core columns had far more mass than the floor assemblies.


It is not my hypthesis. It is NIST's hypothesis. Have you done the experiment with the match yet? What were your conclusions? How does the experiment relate to sagging trusses pulling?


You keep failing to understand a lot of details and show you have a very shallow grasp on this, enough to make up BS but not enough to argue with someone who knows this stuff.


So you keep saying. You just constantly fail to provide anything to support these kind of claims.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


Remember PLB those 5/8" and 1" bolts must have been extremely strong for your sagging truss hypothesis to be true.



. Do you know how strong the bolts were?



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by ANOK


Remember PLB those 5/8" and 1" bolts must have been extremely strong for your sagging truss hypothesis to be true.



. Do you know how strong the bolts were?


About 10 on the stinko meter.
But a -.05 on the PULLITOMETOR



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


SO WHAT HAPPENS WORLD TRADE CENTER TYPE TRUSSES ARE HEATED?

Get the hell OUT cause it's gonan get PULLED!!!
Go ask LARRY
edit on 4/19/2012 by longjohnbritches because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches


About 10 on the stinko meter.
But a -.05 on the PULLITOMETOR


I love Truther Math!



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 



Totally ignorant of DRAFT are't you?? Did these tower have CHIMINEYS???


Ever hear of the stack effect Numb Nutz.....?

Occurs in tall buildings as hot air/gases rise up toward the top of the structure

en.wikipedia.org...

Was responsible for most of the deaths at the MGM Grand Hotel fire in 1980, even though fire was on ground
floor


The fire was caused by an electrical ground fault inside a wall soffit. The wiring inside the wall was used to power a refrigeration unit for a food display cabinet in the deli. The vibration of the machine caused the wires to rub against each other, and the friction-damaged wires arced and caused a fire, which was detected hours later by a hotel employee. The fire spread to the lobby, fed by wallpaper, PVC piping, glue, and plastic mirrors, racing through the casino floor at a rate of 15–19 ft (4.6–5.8 m) per second until a massive fireball blew out the main entrance along The Strip. Seven people died in the casino. The burning material created toxic fumes and smoke, which caused the majority of the deaths.

Due to faulty smoke dampers within the ventilation duct network, the toxic fumes circulated throughout the hotel's air circulation system, accelerating the spread of the poisonous gases.

Most deaths occurred in the stairwells, where the doors locked behind each person as the only open doors in the stairwell were on the roof and on the ground floor. Most of the victims died from smoke inhalation, many of them in their sleep.




posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


ANOK, what if the exterior columns were also heated up to a point where their integrity was affected and sufficiently weakened to allow plasticity? Has that crossed your mind at all? Sure would give a better explanation or something.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I think it is interesting that the last several pages at least and perhaps much of the rest, of back and forth bickering of ONE aspect of the whole thing. Bolts and steel beams. Bolts and steel beams. The thing is, the whole of 9/11 isn't about just one aspect, it is about the whole picture looked at together. The anomalies, the reports, the "co-incidences" all add up after a while to provide a bigger picture to those that are willing to see it, and that bigger picture clearly points to the fact that the OS is a big lie, whatever the truth is.

Therefore, these focused arguments about one aspect successfully derail the search for the truth because in this case, the truth is in the bigger picture. You cannot take one aspect and one aspect only and continue to argue your point ad infinitum and hope to get any where towards finding the truth. Like the whole premise of the OP. All right, so "pull it" may or may not be slang for CD, but it is only one aspect and cannot be taken as proof that the OS true.


There definitely are paid agents on here meant to influence the direction of discussions. Who they are is up for debate and it is unfair to point fingers, but the fact that they are here is unarguable. That focusing on the trees to exclude the forest is a great way to influence discussion because that goads the CT'ers like Anok to constantly defend their positions which wastes page after page on pointless discussion, because that is the point-to avoid the exploration of the metaphorical forest.

So, to my CT brethren: Don't allow yourself to get drawn in to pointless back and forth arguments that only serve to keep the truth further at bay. And to the debunkers, if you don't want people to suspect your motives, don't use tactics that are straight out of disinfo 101.


edit on 19-4-2012 by coyotepoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I think it is interesting that the last several pages at least and perhaps much of the rest, of back and forth bickering of ONE aspect of the whole thing. Bolts and steel beams. Bolts and steel beams. The thing is, the whole of 9/11 isn't about just one aspect, it is about the whole picture looked at together. The anomalies, the reports, the "co-incidences" all add up after a while to provide a bigger picture to those that are willing to see it, and that bigger picture clearly points to the fact that the OS is a big lie, whatever the truth is.

Therefore, these focused arguments about one aspect successfully derail the search for the truth because in this case, the truth is in the bigger picture. You cannot take one aspect and one aspect only and continue to argue your point ad infinitum and hope to get any where towards finding the truth. Like the whole premise of the OP. All right, so "pull it" may or may not be slang for CD, but it is only one aspect and cannot be taken as proof that the OS true.


There definitely are paid agents on here meant to influence the direction of discussions. Who they are is up for debate and it is unfair to point fingers, but the fact that they are here is unarguable. That focusing on the trees to exclude the forest is a great way to influence discussion because that goads the CT'ers like Anok to constantly defend their positions which wastes page after page on pointless discussion, because that is the point-to avoid the exploration of the metaphorical forest.

So, to my CT brethren: Don't allow yourself to get drawn in to pointless back and forth arguments that only serve to keep the truth further at bay. And to the debunkers, if you don't want people to suspect your motives, don't use tactics that are straight out of disinfo 101.



I decided I am going to develop a medium sized housing development in a wooded area. Being environmentally conscious, I decide to use what trees I can, milling them into the wood needed for my development. Do I come in and take down the entire forest at once?

No... I take down one tree at a time so that I can determine what I can use for wood, and what I can use for other purposes. My metaphorical forest is similar to yours. The difference is, you create a forest of illusions. You plant tree after tree without stopping. Without looking at it... is the soil rich? Are they spaced enough for the roots to grow? No, sir. The truther forest is a cluster of trees that will never grow. Why? Because not a single tree is given any thought as to where and how it should be planted.

This is why debunkers will always win! We take one tree at a time and dissect it to find the facts! Throwing the 9/11 laundry list out is comforting to truthers. They marvel at the list and puff out their chest... "LOOK AT WHAT THEY DID!" .... It is a tactic used by some of the truther leaders. Look at Richard Gage and his 90 minute presentation. He goes from thermite to the red cross radio broadcasting a New Years eve type countdown. As it is said may times... throw enough # against the wall, some will stick.

I'm sorry, but debunkers are here to educate those that are really seeking answers and to stop those that want to make a dishonest attempt at rewriting history.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 





I decided I am going to develop a medium sized housing development in a wooded area. Being environmentally conscious, I decide to use what trees I can, milling them into the wood needed for my development. Do I come in and take down the entire forest at once? No... I take down one tree at a time so that I can determine what I can use for wood, and what I can use for other purposes. My metaphorical forest is similar to yours. The difference is, you create a forest of illusions. You plant tree after tree without stopping. Without looking at it... is the soil rich? Are they spaced enough for the roots to grow? No, sir. The truther forest is a cluster of trees that will never grow. Why? Because not a single tree is given any thought as to where and how it should be planted.


And then you realize that the trees you have been looking at are really the legs of an elephant, like the 3 blind men who were convinced an elephant was a tree, a rope, or a hose depending on whether the blind man was "looking" at the elephant's leg, tail, or trunk. These individual "trees" can be deceptive, and I'm not just pointing the fingers at the debunkers. Human perception is an interesting thing. To quote a Vorlon, "Understanding is a 3-edged sword, your side, their side, and the truth."


edit on 19-4-2012 by coyotepoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Six Sigma
 


Remember reading in one engineering report that lateral displacement of only 1 - 1.5 mm was necessary
to shear the bolts off

Bolts are not designed to resist lateral forces



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 79  80  81    83  84 >>

log in

join