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.

 

WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

page: 31
46
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by draco49
Weight is a measure of mass and density in relation to gravity. The property of weight is of no consequence because it is already accounted for within the calculations of both gravitational potential energy, and kinetic energy.

You are incorrect. While the equation for potential energy does include a mass term, it does not include a weight term as it is an equation for energy, not force. The weight of the structure is the force it applies downwards. The energy balance of the system is irrelevant until some work is done.


The available data and accepted laws of physics do not support the conclusions of NIST and Bazant reports. It's those reports that emphatically support their own conclusions while picking and choosing which parts of the data they used to come to their conclusions. If you have links to those papers you referenced, can you please post them? I would like to check them out. More information is always welcome

Certainly, the most relevant paper is BLBG: Damned ATS link system!

This paper has stood in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics for 4 years with no significant criticism, the figures it uses have been checked fairly rigorously on another forum I don't want to advertise, but you can also find two of the authors there who are happy to answer questions.
edit on 27/5/12 by exponent because: url fixin




posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Flatcoat
So this jet fuel flowed down 80 odd floors to the lobby, where it hung around until the firefighters arrived, then exploded with sufficient force to bring the lobby down on them. Have I got that right?

There were a number of fireballs, jet fuel requires oxygen in the air to burn, so it's hard to say what happened when. Obviously the witness accounts are a bit hard to decipher with regards to time. Still, yeah everyone from random office workers to building management to building workers to fire dept mentioned jet fuel and fireballs, and explicitly so in places like the lobby.

I don't think it so much 'flowed', rather 'fell'.


I know you are referring to WTC 1 and 2 but there was no jet fuel in WTC 7. Riddle me that.



What puzzles me is why should the jet fuel only go into the lift shaft, ignite and spread fire and not do the same with the stairwells?

Another thing that puzzles me is that if the airplanes that struck the WTCs towers were traveling at 600 mph, then the burst fuel would also be traveling at that speed when igniting within the towers and would have ejected out of the buildings. Surely very little of the burning fuel would have gone into the lift shafts and what ever went in would have been stopped by the lift cars.

I suspect that airplane fuel would have contributed very little to the collapse of the towers.
edit on 27-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

Correct... 767's fuel distributes within the wings and fuselage main tank. The fuel in the wings could not ,in no way, have made a difference,because aluminum wings are not strong enough to pierce thru steel columns. The wings carry 2k to 5k gallons and the fuselage tank carries up to 6k. So technically we are suppose to believe some 6k gallons of fuel pulverized a boatload of steel. ???








posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno


If your pancake/tree-tipping theory is correct the core should have been visible from the building rapid decent. You are aware of the WTC tower's structural design?.



We are far more aware of it than you, I'm sure. And yes, we did see the core in both towers after collapse. in the South Tower we saw a large section, and in the North Tower as the "Spire".

I do find it interesting that you come here with such a smug attitude, as if you know more than us, and yet, every time you show serious ignorance of everything we talk about, and even less knowledge about anything more complex. And to boot, we are getting tired of the snippy remarks, especially your personal incredulity. That got old fast. You do know that personal incredulity is not a good counter-argument.



Smug attitude?,, I apologize if I have offended you Gdeck. Can you show what part of my dialog was ever smug?

What's weird about what you just posted is how you referred to yourself as "WE"? Who's we? As if all you paid OSers are in a tight IT room preying on 911 threads.

Again, Getting sloppy my friend



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
So technically we are suppose to believe some 6k gallons of fuel pulverized a boatload of steel. ???

No? Who's asking you to believe that? Why do you think steel was 'pulverized', that claim has long since been backed away from by people like Steven Jones, who has access to actual WTC dust. Where still supports it?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Thanks for the link. I'm going to take some time to read it and re-evaluate. I appreciate the information and look forward to getting back to you



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by draco49
 


No problem man, nice to see someone take their time to think out a reply before going at it. I'm probably off to bed shortly assuming my next compile goes as planned, so I will reply to anything in the next day or so.

Cheers!



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
What part of "definitely secondary explosions" are you confused about?


edit on 27-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


The thing about this video here is that these guys heard these explosions while the tower was collapsing above them. Since I know of no demolitions that can accurately detonate in the middle of a collapse, I am to assume that demolitions are supposed to go off before a collapse begins. The firefighters there were describing the explosions of the floors collapsing one on top of another right above their heads.

If anything, it proves the pancake collapse theory. I mean, I'm sure you think a floor-by-floor collapse will sound like a waterfall or avalanche or something, but it will probably sound more like exploding concrete and breaking steel.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
So technically we are suppose to believe some 6k gallons of fuel pulverized a boatload of steel. ???

No? Who's asking you to believe that? Why do you think steel was 'pulverized', that claim has long since been backed away from by people like Steven Jones, who has access to actual WTC dust. Where still supports it?


So you are saying not one piece of steel was pulverized?. All that dust-smoke is solely from concrete?? Sorry I could care less about Steve or anyone else. I don't need to ask or take someone's opinion on what they have access on.


Are you serious?

"Where still supports it?"« Is that even english?



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
What part of "definitely secondary explosions" are you confused about?


edit on 27-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


The thing about this video here is that these guys heard these explosions while the tower was collapsing above them. Since I know of no demolitions that can accurately detonate in the middle of a collapse, I am to assume that demolitions are supposed to go off before a collapse begins. The firefighters there were describing the explosions of the floors collapsing one on top of another right above their heads.

If anything, it proves the pancake collapse theory. I mean, I'm sure you think a floor-by-floor collapse will sound like a waterfall or avalanche or something, but it will probably sound more like exploding concrete and breaking steel.


Did you get a chance to interview these two men sometime after this video was taken?

"If anything"???? «You have no proof of a pancake-drop happening,just assumptions. Were you filming the collapse(real time) with an infrared camera?. One would think if a pancake drop did occur we would see at least 2 or 3 slaps visibly compressed in the rubble. No?


Take care



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno
Did you get a chance to interview these two men sometime after this video was taken?

"If anything"???? «You have no proof of a pancake-drop happening,just assumptions. Were you filming the collapse(real time) with an infrared camera?. One would think if a pancake drop did occur we would see at least 2 or 3 slaps visibly compressed in the rubble. No?


Take care



You have proof of the opposite then? I proposed an alternative to the interpretation that truthers have of the video, and it happens to align with the official story. You tell me I'm wrong because you want me to be wrong.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

767's fuel distributes within the wings and fuselage main tank.


The center tank of both AA11 and UA175 were empty. AA11 had an estimated 66,100 pounds (9,664gal) total in the wing tanks



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by draco49

That's just not accurate. Stable resistance of the entire structure was achieved by employing the use of segmented, tapered, central support columns from the foundation all the way to the top. Saying that the truss seating was what was providing the gravitational resistance is disingenuous. The tapering of those steel core supports is similar to the physics behind pyramids, and why they are so structurally sound. Larger supports of greater diameter were used at the base because they needed to support the greatest amount of mass. Further up, the supports were smaller in diameter. This design model was used because it allows for consistent system stability, making efficient use of the heavy, dense steel. This also means that the PE of the top portion of the buildings were less than the lower portions of the building, further contradicting the official reports.



It doesn't matter how strong the columns were. It was the truss seats that transmitted the load imposed on the floors into the columns. After collapse initiation the force placed on the truss seats exceeded their limits and they separated from the walls.

No columns needed to fail under compression for the collapse to continue so their strength is unimportant.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I don't think there is any reason to "interpret" what these firefighters are saying. They explain fairly clearly what happened.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Please, tell me exactly why a conspirator would plant bombs in the lobby, the place that is going to have literally the most attention out of the entire complex focused on it.....


Because they knew that they could just put out the "official story" on the MSM that jet fuel came down the elevator shafts and caused all the explosions and the mind-controlled lemmings would lap it up like parched camels after a trek to Timbuktoo, and then spend years and years trying to convince others that the people who were actually there didn't hear or see what they heard and saw. In the meantime, they would take away the rights of the people a little at a time until one day we look up and we have an Oligarchy-controlled Fascist Dictatorship.

Thanks for your efforts in helping them achieve their agenda.


I doubt I'll ever know.
No wonder, try opening your eyes.
edit on 28-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
I don't give a crap what you think. Answer the friggin question. If you're a "planer", then where's the plane on the BTS website? I mean, is there ANYTHING RIGHT about the OS?

So let me get this right. You can't find information on the flight of the planes more than a decade after the fact and we're supposed to believe that's a failing of the 'Official Story' rather than your poor research?

The information is easily available, hell Wikipedia has more than what you'd need. I really don't understand what the problem is.




Just as I thought. Shooting blanks again.

Show me an official flight tracking website that shows what time Flight 11 actually lifted off out of Logan Airport.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by exponent
Please, tell me exactly why a conspirator would plant bombs in the lobby, the place that is going to have literally the most attention out of the entire complex focused on it.....


Because they knew that they could just put out the "official story" on the MSM that jet fuel came down the elevator shafts and caused all the explosions and the mind-controlled lemmings would lap it up like parched camels after a trek to Timbuktoo, and then spend years and years trying to convince others that the people who were actually there didn't hear or see what they heard and saw. In the meantime, they would take away the rights of the people a little at a time until one day we look up and we have an Oligarchy-controlled Fascist Dictatorship.

Thanks for your efforts in helping them achieve their agenda.


I doubt I'll ever know.
No wonder, try opening your eyes.
edit on 28-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)


So this woman just imagined the 82% burns she suffered in the lobby ?

today.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

So this woman just imagined the 82% burns she suffered in the lobby ?

today.msnbc.msn.com...


Nice try, but I said "all the explosions". It seems that the jet fuel got there before the "plane" did, according to your version of things.

WTC Eyewitness " a bomb went off in the lobby first,then a plane hit"

www.youtube.com...
edit on 28-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Alfie1

So this woman just imagined the 82% burns she suffered in the lobby ?

today.msnbc.msn.com...


Nice try, but I said "all the explosions". It seems that the jet fuel got there before the "plane" did, according to your version of things.

WTC Eyewitness " a bomb went off in the lobby first,then a plane hit"

www.youtube.com...
edit on 28-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)


Thats your prime witness ? A man visibly shocked and shaking who says " I think" ?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

Um,,,You have been doing this for 6+ years. I'd say you've been employee of the month more than once. You're doing a great job.




6+ years! Jeez, that's some serious dedication to a government story that they vehemently say is true.
If the OS is a wrap, a clear cut case, as they say, who on this earth would dedicate so much time protecting that story?! Very, very strange behaviour don't you think!?! They get really quite hostile over it too!

I notice that 2008 is a year when a few more OS upholders popped up, some interesting stuff happened that year, and it seems a damage limitation campaign was initiated further.

If you search in google, and use the terms 'lie busters' and 'above top secret' you'll find some interesting info.




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Thats your prime witness ? A man visibly shocked and shaking who says " I think" ?


I think countless first responders, eye witnesses, and video/audio recordings carry more weight than a couple of people on a forum who believe what they saw on tv!



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join