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.

 

Towers Of Lies

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by RockLobster
 


I suppose 7 hours before collapse is "ridiculous speed," but I'm just -V-, right? Nothing I say matters.




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
Can't you see how ridiculous that is? The closest I can get to finding a building that even collapsed similarly to the towers, explosives or not, is the verinage method from France. The thing about that is that it has only been done with concrete structures thus far. The fact is that you are making an argument from ignorance, and nothing more.


and here's what that looks like - albeit I don't know what construction technique is used for these examples:



apparently verinage can be used on any building where the walls are the load bearing members, but not where columns are - what the walls are constructed of is irrelevant.

however the point is that floors that can take the static weight of the building above them are pretty easily pancaked by that weight falling on them. What the building is made of is irrelevant to that.
edit on 3-4-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


You know fine well what i`m talking about -V-

2nd



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Yeah and you guys fail to see why that method works on those buildings, and the WTC building wouldn't.

First off that method does not work on steel framed buildings, and secondly note very carefully where the buildings start to collapse.

Think equal and opposite reaction, and pay close attention to the details, otherwise you will forever post nonsense.

Edit; I'm feeling generous, here is a clue, because I doubt you'll bother to try to figure it out for yourself....



Note, the top does not stay in one piece while crushing the bottom, they both crush equally. Now I'm giving it away...


edit on 4/3/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Yeah and you guys fail to see why that method works on those buildings, and the WTC building wouldn't.

First off that method does not work on steel framed buildings, and secondly note very carefully where the buildings start to collapse.

Think equal and opposite reaction, and pay close attention to the details, otherwise you will forever post nonsense.


you didn't really pay attention to my post, did you...



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Anok - i didnt even know you were still around , well , under that nick anyway.

You`re right , infact didnt we all argue over this technique last year ? after -V- showed us his amazing biro pen physics video whilst discussing "the topple"

edit on 3-4-2012 by RockLobster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by ANOK
 


Anok - i didnt even know you were still around , well , under that nick anyway....


Yep still here avoiding the ban hammer, not a bad run 8 years, for someone who posts in the 911 forum a lot lol.

We probably did debate this my memory is not that good anymore, who were you last year lol?


edit on 4/3/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I think my old nick is bannable material ,
, it wasnt offencive , but i didnt fit in with a few mods who still operate on here ...... just laying low , trying not to rustle any feathers.

I was in a couple of threads with you , from what i remember , you`re a very "clued up" person , and you stand your ground. I respect that , its good to see you again ANOK. I remember running rings around -V- and Proud Bird with you.

I see -V- hasnt changed his ways .....



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
reply to post by ANOK
 


I think my old nick is bannable material ,
, it wasnt offencive , but i didnt fit in with a few mods who still operate on here ...... just laying low , trying not to rustle any feathers.

I was in a couple of threads with you , from what i remember , you`re a very "clued up" person , and you stand your ground. I respect that , its good to see you again ANOK. I remember running rings around -V- and Proud Bird with you.

I see -V- hasnt changed his ways .....


Why are you so obsessed with me? I guess I should be flattered that you've even given me a cool nickname, but it's not relevant to any discussion. What's your point for being here, adding nothing to these threads?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Yeah -V- , why cant you even see the hypocrisy in what youve just said ?

I know where you stand on the debate , most of ATS does , but still , here you are , bashing that poor old horse with your broken bat.

I actually beleive its possible , that some of the floors were empty , i mean , how many people had been to every single floor in the tower ...... and if your gov has been hiding a plan for global financial meltdown , or the invasion of all other countries with oil reserves , why couldnt they hide a few floors and plan 9/11 before the towers were even built .

Sounds absolutley crazy , i know , but so does a plane flying through a building and leaving a cartoon like hole , or the towers collapsing at "NEAR" free fall speed , or maybe even as crazy as a full tower collapsing from a few isolated office fires.

But i dont beleive it happened , possible , but its not my theory , i go with explosives because of the energy needed to create such a mess out of high rise steel structures.
edit on 3-4-2012 by RockLobster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster

I remember running rings around -V- and Proud Bird with you.



Haha! In a dream you had.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by RockLobster
 





7 collapse after standing strong for hours on end with a few scattered "office fires" , then why was tower 6 still standing.


I told you, the mass it has to support.



Its not about the height or the build


Absolutely is. How can you debate construction and fail to see that?




infact you cant really see any extreme damage


Then you didn’t look very thoroughly. Exaggerate much?




the tower collapses at a rediculous speed


Was it supposed to take a non-gravity tour on the way down? Tell me what that has to do with anything.




into its own footprint


Again, where else? That tour you imply or topple like a tree?




would you care to answer me without the attitude


I don’t recall an attitude Alice, but the accusation compels me to insult, grow a pair.




what are you saying ? the towers should have toppled and not fell "straight down" into their own print



It seemed odd to you that you had to mention it in this very post. So you tell me or make up your own mind, or story, try to stay focused on one tangent at a time.
BTW, people that feel the need to use smilies is a very definition of attitude. Why can’t your message stand on its own without such attitude?

If one wants to see attitude they could string all of your posts in this thread together back to back and take a gander of it all.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Failure mode makes a big difference in real life. The crushing type failure observed in your model absorbs more kinetic energy than a column buckling failure would. This is the key difference between your model and an appropriate model of the collapse process.


Nice claim but a straight pin is far stronger than my paper loop.

psik



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Failure mode makes a big difference in real life. The crushing type failure observed in your model absorbs more kinetic energy than a column buckling failure would. This is the key difference between your model and an appropriate model of the collapse process.


Nice claim but a straight pin is far stronger than my paper loop.

psik


A straight pin would be stronger, yeah, but still just as non-representative of any of the strengths in the tower. Your model is absolutely useless for proving anything regarding what happened on 9/11.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Seems more logical that the materials list was padded to line the pockets of contractors.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by MattNC
Seems more logical that the materials list was padded to line the pockets of contractors.


Do you have evidence of the cost structure for the contractors?
Without any evidence your post amounts to a rant.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Failure mode makes a big difference in real life. The crushing type failure observed in your model absorbs more kinetic energy than a column buckling failure would. This is the key difference between your model and an appropriate model of the collapse process.


Nice claim but a straight pin is far stronger than my paper loop.

psik


A straight pin would be stronger, yeah, but still just as non-representative of any of the strengths in the tower. Your model is absolutely useless for proving anything regarding what happened on 9/11.


How many times do I have to point out that I never claim it is PROOF?


Proof implies CERTAINTY.

Proofs exist in mathematics with ACCURATE DATA.

My model is not a tube-in-tube structure. Are you claiming that collapse could happen without damaging the supports? Are you claiming that damage would not require energy? Are you claiming that ABSORPTION OF ENERGY would not SLOW THE COLLAPSE?

But my Python program using only the conservation of momentum takes 12 seconds with equal masses. So if destroying the supports would slow the collapse then what would the ultimate time become? But then you people don't want exact data on the buildings so how could anyone produce any proof?

You are talking in circles to make sure the problem is never resolved.

psik



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Then why do you keep using it in your arguments? You make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by MattNC
Seems more logical that the materials list was padded to line the pockets of contractors.


Do you have evidence of the cost structure for the contractors?
Without any evidence your post amounts to a rant.


No less than the rant in the youtube video.

30 year conspiracy? Craziness.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RockLobster
Show me a building like the WTC collapse in the exact same way without explosives and i`ll fly to your house and kiss your feet.


Show me a building like the WTC that was hit by airliners or burned uncontrolled for 7 hours that did not collapse the exact same way the WTC did.

See, its a rather unique event. There is nothing like this to compare with. Inductive reasoning does not work here. Doing so anyhow is illogical.

On the other hand, there are quite some cases of controlled demolition. Lets see what happens if I ask you to hold the same standard as your are asking from others:

Show me a building like the WTC collapse in the exact same way with explosives and i`ll fly to your house and kiss your feet.




top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join