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.

 

What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

page: 34
20
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
Why were there no body parts? Just small fragments, and then only 1/10 of the people that supposedly died that day were identified?

Because many of those bodies were consumed in a rubble mass of thousands of tons of concrete and steel. The type of destruction that went on at the heart of those collapses is unimaginable. Explosives do not split people into absolutely tiny chunks unless they're literally placed inside them or ridiculously huge. A giant thousand ton concrete grinder though? There's not much organic that could resist that.

It's a depressing thing to think about really, I don't like to dwell on that aspect of the event.




posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


you see your avatar.....that is me right now....I am now bald.

We know a few things here...do we not...we know the construction of the towers....we know that buildings are built from the ground up not from the top down.

we can get a fairly close approximation to the mass of the upper block....so in this case...we only need the mass in the north tower....as the mass is less...and if the mass in that upper section cannot Crush down the structure...then all other counts make no difference.

also the crushing will have to crush down on all core columns....Straight down....why is this important...it is because the collapse was straight down.....simple as that....now if the upper block shifted as some of the osers say then that is even more unlikely to have a straight crush down as the lower core columns would act like spears...and penetrate through the upper block which would then be visble in the collapse...

and as i write this...it sounds more and more ridiculous....because it just leads more and more to the fact resistance seems to have left all three buildings that day.

The collapses due to gravity alone just does not work....no matter how one trys and trys and trys to accept the OS.....Honestly...i would love to believe the OS but it is just absolutely so unbelievable.....even while i am trying to respond to you...it just fails on so many fronts.

buildings are built to support each and every floor as the building rises into the air....and all the time it is built to resist the loads of all the materials being used in the construction...and to resist the forces of wind as it gets high into the sky and to definitely resist the force of gravity,

so back to your bowling ball and your balloon....if you want model representation....drop the bowling ball onto the bowling ball....simple as that.
edit on 033030p://f55Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


because i stated that if you look what happened and i showed you pics seconds after the collapse initiated that the entire mass of upper block c has disintegrated...so therefore that negates Bazants paper....and you kindly point out that k-out accounts for it...which i stated...notice this is from memory i don't need to quote because i do pay attention......that k-out only accounts for mass being expelled at the crushing front.

that is why...i have fairly good memory as long as i can hold back the Alzheimer.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


actually...have you heard off john O Niel

i would tell you the story but it is so unbelievable it is disgusting.

so i will point it out.....he is one of apparently only 12 bodies found in tact at the on 911 that day....the truth is stranger than fiction here....but it is all in my signature thread.

he was a former fbi agent....first day on the job for security at the world trade centre....found 11days later,,,in a stairwell identified by none other than one jerome hauer

[Both of Larry's children, directors of Silverstein properties were miraculously late to work on 9/11. Larry would as a habit have breakfast each morning in the WTC, not that day though, Larry was miraculously lucky in that he had cancelled the mornings business meetings in favour of a last minute dermatologist's appointment and therefore none of the Silverstein family perished in the collapse that day, even though all three of them should have been at their desks. Not so lucky was Larry's newest employee, former FBI counterintelligence agent John O'Neil.
Out of the 2,780 victims of the WTC only 12 bodies were found physically intact, John O'Neil was one of those rare 12 bodies that were identifiable by sight. John's body was found at the bottom of a stairwell in the south tower on Sept 22nd where he had supposedly lain for 11 days, he was formally identified by Jerome Hauer.]

this is an excerpt from my signature thread.....just go to it if you care....then you might also understand my thinking

it is sourced and it shown as it is....off site content.


edit on 033030p://f46Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
What is this supposed to mean? Steel is not infallible, and concrete will almost always do very much better in compression. Of course you can drop steel on steel and get deformation and damage.


It means what it means. I never said steel was infallible I was just pointing out facts that effect collapses. I'm not surprised you didn't understand that though.

Concrete does better in compression than steel? No it doesn't. Concrete is strong in compression but very weak in tension. It doesn't mean it is stronger than steel in compression, and steel is also very strong in tension. Steel buildings have about the same thermal mass as equivalent concrete buildings.

en.wikipedia.org...


In compression, steel is more than 10 times stronger than concrete, and in tension, more than 100 times stronger.

encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com...

So will you re-think your opinion, or just ignore this as you usually do and move on? How about some honesty for a change in this discussion?


Have you read the paper I linked you to yet? How is it that they managed to get a handle on this 'impossible' pheonena?


I'm not going to wade through a paper you linked to. Please simply quote what you think is relevant and we can discus it. That is phenomena btw.

Now with all that in mind maybe you will watch this vid and understand?




edit on 6/1/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
now just because i am somewhat generous...i will show you my work....this is some work i did in the blueprint for truth thread quite some time ago...but it might explain what i have stated visually.













bar on the right follows path of the building collapse...each segment represent aprox 10ft...the height of a floor

between yellow and green line the impact and apparent collapse area....the white block at the end the original block...

what it shows is the upper block undergoing a huge crush up which right there means the progressive collapse put forward by Bazant would not occur and the collapse would actually stop due to the loss of mass.


just a note....those are frames from the sauret video....it is about 28fps that is 10 frames so you are inteligent i am sure you can do the maths on that one.

do you see the problem for bazant here...the apparent rigid block c has already progressed (noting that there are another three floors lower on the white lines...i just could not fit them in as it already progressed off screen)
has not even started to crush down on the lower block. the mass has already disintegrated...note the bottom of the red line to the right the height of the original block.
Also notice the scale to the right...it is the height of each floor...what does this tell us....It tells us the block is under constant acceleration.....even when the should be an aparent deceleration at point of impact on the lower structure....Is this what is observed.....oddly not...the only reason i can think of this occurring is the core has already been compromised...and is giving no or very little resistance.
just another note...i use Crush up lightly here...very lightly...as that is complete and utter destruction on all fronts.


edit on 043030p://f26Friday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 043030p://f31Friday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 043030p://f44Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube


what it shows is the upper block undergoing a huge crush up which right there means the progressive collapse put forward by Bazant would not occur and the collapse would actually stop due to the loss of mass.


just a note....those are frames from the sauret video....it is about 28fps that is 10 frames so you are inteligent i am sure you can do the maths on that one.

do you see the problem for bazant here...the apparent rigid block c has already progressed (noting that there are another three floors lower on the white lines...i just could not fit them in as it already progressed off screen)
has not even started to crush down on the lower block. the mass has already disintegrated...note the bottom of the red line to the right the height of the original block.
Also notice the scale to the right...it is the height of each floor...what does this tell us....It tells us the block is under constant acceleration.....even when the should be an aparent deceleration at point of impact on the lower structure....Is this what is observed.....oddly not...the only reason i can think of this occurring is the core has already been compromised...and is giving no or very little resistance.


edit on 043030p://f26Friday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 043030p://f31Friday by plube because: (no reason given)


The block is under constant acceleration, you are correct as gravity is the driver here. However, you are incorrect regarding the mass. The mass does not disappear. The mass even though it's partially crushed is still there and it does not just go away. The mass that is crushed is still going down as the floors are not outside the footprint at all, but still inside. That is where you and ANOK constantly slip up. Mass is not lost. Also, you cannot claim that the lower block section is disintegrated into nothing. What you are seeing is the large amounts of concrete and mostly drywall, sheetrock, and fireproofing creating the copious amounts of dust we see. The steel is not turning into dust, as well as the floors inside are not turning to dust and vanishing. What we see is the top block of 15+ floors coming down on each floor below. Each floor that is destroyed is now part of the growing and falling mass.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Sometimes i must thank the OSer's for making me go back over things...as it reaffirms things...also...if we look at the above...notice the fires....what happens to them.....Completely and undoubtedly snuffed out....so why would a logical person not ask....why was there any molten steel present at all underground at the WTC....
the whole thing stinks....It is wrong on all accounts....NIST explains nothing....the colors of the flames alone means it not an oxygen rich fire....if we look at the series of shots....the fires only become oxygen rich in the sixth frame...we can tell this as the flames go from orange to a brighter almost yellow in color.
I would venture to say this is when air is actually injected into the flames....so when people say air was being forced into the building why was the upper section has collapsed four floors before this occurs.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Sorry as you can see...the upper block has not even crushed down on the lower block.....as the green line shows the lower block has not been affected at all by this point where the roof line has already dropped get this.....8 floors.

now you just stated a fact.....IT should ?NOT be constantly accelerating....it should be coming full on contact with resistance from the lower block.....so you have just shown right there it is not undergoing a gravity driven collapse alone.

just another note here...i used the stable intact building as a guide....you can see the lines stay true to the reference points

also you can see debris is already expelled over half the building width in all directions...this is ALL mass already outside the perimeter of the building.....within no longer than... .5secs now the that is approx 100ft in ALL directions......is it all the mass nope...is it a large quantity....yes....your wrong Gen.....completely wrong.


edit on 053030p://f07Friday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 053030p://f12Friday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 053030p://f14Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


you can repeat over and over that the floors are progressing down...but as shown....the lower part has not moved down one bit even though the roof line has already dropped 8 floors....so why has the lower part not dropped by the same amount....now the conundrum if it is not then there would be resistance....and this would show as a deceleration which would be measurable.....but this is not what is happening is it.
note.....Anok and i do not talk or converse...other than what we post.....we post completely and independently so if there is any resemblance it is most likely because we might be in the same field of work.

no as stated...if you look at the bottom of the red line to the right that is how far the lower part of the upper block should have progressed into the structure if Bazants model of crush down was to hold true...but does that occur ....guess what....no it does not.

edit on 053030p://f26Friday by plube because: note



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
As I have said many times before, the top section, and the bottom section, were two separate events that had nothing to with each other.

The top section is a bottom up collapse, the bottom section, which started later than the top section, was a top down collapse. This is why the top of tower two tilted, it met resistance of the lower floors that had not yet started to collapse, when they did the top followed behind, vertically, losing the pivot point and it's angular momentum.




edit on 6/1/2012 by ANOK because: how many times can you proof-read your reply and still find a mistake?



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


also one more thing...did i once....ONCE in anything i stated say that the steel turned to dust....DO NOT make untrue statements or throw in rubbish to make what i am saying sound like anything other than what is being stated...what kind of tactic is that.
also DUST IS MASS

if it were a dumpster full of dust....is it mass.....I will venture a guess here.....YES



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
If you look at the last pic in Plubes post above you can just see the top tilting before the dust covers it, and that is tower one. Both tops tilted tower two was just more obvious.

If the top is tilting it is meeting resistance, and is it not moving vertically in order to impart equal pressure around the building to create a vertical collapse force. Like hitting a nail off center, it will bend not go straight down. Basic mechanics.

The top was not crushing the bottom, the videos prove it, you can see it with your own eyes. You don't need Bazant and his "calculations" to see it.




edit on 6/1/2012 by ANOK because: how many times can you proof-read your reply and still find a mistake?



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I will make one more point here.....this whole occurrence is within 10 frames of a 28fps video ......translate to all within half a second....i stated the upper block itself disintegrates....not the steel.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


That is why the white layover is tilted...i used pixel co ordinates to keep everything true....used x,y axis to make sure all points were always correct so it would follow orientation of the building.....

I used gom player to capture the frames...and it notes the frames per second.....I used jasc paint pro 9 to do all the overlays....and was able to use the features of that program to make sure all lines stayed true.

I used the sauret video with the building next to it so i had a perfect stationary reference point in which to make sure i could always have a point of reference when doing the mapping.

i used the known height of the spire to obtain the floor heights.....once floor heights could be establish i made the guide marks to keep the floor heights stationary...and used the red line to follow track the upper block as it descends.....

A am saying this to show i did not just make a drawing with pretty lines....it is all referenced.

If it helps you in anyway...please use it.
edit on 063030p://f04Friday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by ANOK
 


That is why the white layover is tilted


OK I see that now, I actually didn't catch it before for some reason.

It works perfectly to show what is going on. Makes it obvious it's not collapsing from the failure of floor trusses.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


i thought it did to...also just one more note....i had to remove the last three floors off the white overlay as it would have gone outside the frame....but the red line to the right show how much further it should be.

also in the gif i out of sequenced one frame so the gif itself is not accurate (my mistake)...as you can see when it at the end it appears to pop up on level before the last frame...i will fix that....but the frames themselves are in the sequence they should appear in the gif...so easily fixed...
not quite so easily fixed...it is the gif maker at gicker.com seems to reset to first image then to last.....thinking i need to find one and download it.
edit on 013030p://f56Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 023030p://f49Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
because i stated that if you look what happened and i showed you pics seconds after the collapse initiated that the entire mass of upper block c has disintegrated...so therefore that negates Bazants paper

Except it totally doesn't. Bazant's paper was a best case scenario for the building. If indeed the upper section did disintegrate that means it is impacting floors rather than walls.

This is a much worse case for the building, and no matter whether it's a rubbleised block or a solid upper block, the floors are so incredibly weak it was certain doom for the building. Bazant's case is a limiting case, so when you say "Aha the building didn't collapse that way" what you are saying is "The building collapsed in a mode using less energy".



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
It means what it means. I never said steel was infallible I was just pointing out facts that effect collapses. I'm not surprised you didn't understand that though.

So it means nothing then, that's not a surprise, I am used to reading through hyperbole and waiting for you to actually bother to go read the paper you requested and I provided.



Concrete does better in compression than steel? No it doesn't. Concrete is strong in compression but very weak in tension. It doesn't mean it is stronger than steel in compression, and steel is also very strong in tension. Steel buildings have about the same thermal mass as equivalent concrete buildings.

I love this desperate scrabble to pick a preferable metric and then insist that's what is most important. If we believed your logic we'd have to ask why every single building isn't made out of steel. The answer of course is that concrete in compression is often far superior to steel as the 'failed demolition' videos show.


So will you re-think your opinion, or just ignore this as you usually do and move on? How about some honesty for a change in this discussion?

Gee lets see how honest you're going to be:

I'm not going to wade through a paper you linked to. Please simply quote what you think is relevant and we can discus it. That is phenomena btw.

What a shock, you won't even read a paper you demanded. Why are you so afraid of being shown to be wrong?



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I love this desperate scrabble to pick a preferable metric and then insist that's what is most important. If we believed your logic we'd have to ask why every single building isn't made out of steel. The answer of course is that concrete in compression is often far superior to steel as the 'failed demolition' videos show.


Talk about desperate.

Could it be that steel is expensive and it does not make sense to use it in short buildings.

Skyscrapers were not possible until the late 19th century when the Bessemer process enabled relatively inexpensive and large steel production.

en.wikipedia.org...

It looks like the Bazant defence has turned into verbal BS.

psik



new topics




 
20
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join