It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# The five biggest issues with the 'Official Story'

page: 10
6
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 02:37 PM

Originally posted by SkepticGuy
Another Comparison between a Tower and a man:

Tower weight: 500,000 ton
Boeing weight: 200 ton
man weight: 80 kg

500,000 tons : 200 tons = 80 kg : x
500,000,000 kg : 200,000 kg = 80 kg : x
x = 0,032 kg = 32 g

200,000 kg : 32 g = 800 km/h : x 200,000,000 g : 32 g = 800,000 m/h : x

x = 0,128 m/h = 12.8 cm/h

Steel ball impact velocity against the man: 12.8 cm/h

Biggest velocity indeed

These are Phisics calculations with proportions

That was deliciously insane. Thank you for that small glimpse into the delusional world of Truther Physics.

posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 04:29 PM

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by SkepticGuy

What a ridiculous attempt at an analogy.

Can a 300 pound torpedo sink a 45,000 ton ship?

Hmm.....maybe we should check the history books on Naval warfare?

Yes it can, but the ship would most likely remain more or less intact, albeit on the ocean floor.

posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 05:59 PM

Originally posted by SkepticGuy
Comparison between a Tower and a man:

Tower weight: 500,000 ton
Boeing weight: 200 ton
man weight: 80 kg

500,000 tons : 200 tons = 80 kg : x
500,000,000 kg : 200,000 kg = 80 kg : x
x = 0,032 kg = 32 g

Can you destroy a man, can you crumble him with a little steel ball that weighs 32 grams?
NO

Can a ridiculous plane that weighs 200 tons crumble a powerfull Tower that weighs 500,000 tons?
NO
ABSOLUTELY NO

What creationist school did you go to

Its more like 220,000 -250,000 tons per tower
The towers crushed themselves the planes didn't

As for your 32 g weight how far is it falling and what distance does it stop over so put some figs in this calaculator in the link

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

So lets say your 32g fell the height of the towers 452 m hit you on the head and it took 10cm to stop lets see the force.

So in the link above mass 0.032 kg height 452m stopping distance 0.1mtrs

impact force 1417n divide by 9.81 = 144 kg!!!! LETS SAY IT STOPPED AFTER 1CM OR 0.01MTR

THATS 14174 N divide by 9.81= 1444 kg THATS right 1.444 tons

SO will you let us drop that 32g on YOU!!!!

posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 06:24 PM
reply to post by Flatcoat

So then you agree he made a moronic analogy? It doesnt matter how big the jet was, it matters how much damage was done and how hot the fires were.

posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 06:27 AM
reply to post by vipertech0596

It appears to be a trap that both sides of the debate fall into regularly. When discussing such a unique occurrence, it's hard to find an appropriate analogy. To my mind, it tends to confuse the matter even more. I'm not targeting your, or his analogy specifically, just saying in general.

posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 03:16 PM
Another analogy

Imagine that God had hit the top of the tower with a gigantic hammer (100 meters x 100 meters)
What would it have happened?

Steel columns and beams would have bent, would be unbolted but they would not be crumbled.

Steel is not like camel crap dried under the sun

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:00 AM

Originally posted by SkepticGuy
Another analogy

Imagine that God had hit the top of the tower with a gigantic hammer (100 meters x 100 meters)
What would it have happened?

Steel columns and beams would have bent, would be unbolted but they would not be crumbled.

Steel is not like camel crap dried under the sun

YOU dont have a clue about the construction of these buildings THE FLOORS COULD FALL IN SIDE THE WALLS

Go do a search on how the floor trusses were fixed to the walls then STFU

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 02:19 AM

Originally posted by SkepticGuy
Another analogy

Imagine that God had hit the top of the tower with a gigantic hammer (100 meters x 100 meters)
What would it have happened?

Steel columns and beams would have bent, would be unbolted but they would not be crumbled.

Steel is not like camel crap dried under the sun

Jesus H. Christ! No wonder we can't get this trivia resolved in TEN YEARS.

psik

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 08:24 AM
Dear friend wmd_2008

You wrote: "YOU dont have a clue about the construction of these buildings THE FLOORS COULD FALL IN SIDE THE WALLS"

In your opinion the falling floors could crumble powerful steel beams and columns of 400 meters

YES, IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS WITH EXPLOSIVES

Look at this vid:Youtube

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 08:32 AM
reply to post by SkepticGuy

More concrete structures psik when will you learn also look at the blast sequence
:

If you can show a 110 floor building hit by an aircraft that is steel framed tube in tube design that goes on fire and survives then you may have a case.

SO what is it about DYNAMIC LOADS that scares you

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 08:42 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Steel is not like camel crap dried under the sun

Jesus H. Christ! No wonder we can't get this trivia resolved in TEN YEARS.

psik

I usually say stuff like "peanut brittle".... but I thought "camel crap dried under the sun" was an excellent analogy for what happened to the steel in the WTC....

edit on 20-7-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 09:14 AM
reply to post by SkepticGuy

A crumbled steel beam? And you saw this where in the debris?

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:24 PM
reply to post by vipertech0596

In these photos I can't see any beam or column made by camel crap dried under the sun.

Zulu are perhaps making them in another secret place

To destroy all that steel, my dear friend vipertech, you have to use 1100 Boeings (110 floors x 10 planes)

edit on 20-7-2012 by SkepticGuy because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:28 PM
Later almost 11 years, you are still discussing on the Twin Towers.

It is an old story.

Have all of you not yet understood that they have been demolished with explosives?
What are you still looking for?

Also stupid children would now understand that the towers have collapsed through controlled demolitions.

Haven't you engineers in your country that have confirmed Twin Towers have been destroyed with explosives?

Bush wanted a pretext to make a war of the west against the Arabic countries to take possession of oil, but nobody has agreed.

Stop these boring discussions about an evident thing indeed.

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:25 PM

Originally posted by SkepticGuy
Dear friend wmd_2008

You wrote: "YOU dont have a clue about the construction of these buildings THE FLOORS COULD FALL IN SIDE THE WALLS"

In your opinion the falling floors could crumble powerful steel beams and columns of 400 meters

YES, IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS WITH EXPLOSIVES

Look at this vid:Youtube

Well for a start NONE of the columns or beams were 400 mtrs were they? the thickness also varied from top to bottom ,the floors were supported by the trusses they were suspended between the walls and the cores on the angle cleats SO yes the floors COULD drop inside.

The buildings peeled themselves apart when the collapse started. The structures design FLAW was the floor system!

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:25 AM

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The structures design FLAW was the floor system!

Capitalizing words doesn't make them any more true.

It's just a lie written in CAPS.

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 06:49 AM

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The structures design FLAW was the floor system!

Capitalizing words doesn't make them any more true.

It's just a lie written in CAPS.

Just confirms YOU haven't got a clue about structures!!!

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 09:14 AM

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The structures design FLAW was the floor system!

Capitalizing words doesn't make them any more true.

It's just a lie written in CAPS.

Just confirms YOU haven't got a clue about structures!!!

There was no design flaw. Those buildings were OVER-built. They just happened to be built differently because they were so tall and were designed for continuous office space without interrupting columns. The ycould have withstood being hit by the entire American Airlines fleet without collapsing the way they did.

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 09:47 AM
reply to post by SkepticGuy

Have all of you not yet understood that they have been demolished with explosives?
What are you still looking for?

Someone, anyone, to present something that can even be remotely considered evidence of the use of explosives, but alas, nothing.

Also stupid children would now understand that the towers have collapsed through controlled demolitions.

And apparently it is the stupid children that believe that.

Haven't you engineers in your country that have confirmed Twin Towers have been destroyed with explosives?

Nope. None of them.

Bush wanted a pretext to make a war of the west against the Arabic countries to take possession of oil, but nobody has agreed.

And yet here we are 11 years later and America has still not taken possession of aany oil.

Stop these boring discussions about an evident thing indeed.

You first.

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:29 AM

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The structures design FLAW was the floor system!

Capitalizing words doesn't make them any more true.

It's just a lie written in CAPS.

Just confirms YOU haven't got a clue about structures!!!

There was no design flaw. Those buildings were OVER-built. They just happened to be built differently because they were so tall and were designed for continuous office space without interrupting columns. The ycould have withstood being hit by the entire American Airlines fleet without collapsing the way they did.

Well here is a floor truss angle cleat care to explain how thats over engineered

edit on 25-7-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

6