Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is there any real counter argument to the Conspiracy theorists of 9/11

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup

Originally posted by Alfie1
[
The man you posted died on 9/11 which doesn't speak much for his insight. Patently to suppose that the Towers could sustain multiple plane impacts is nonsense. How many ? 2,4, 50 ?

This is what Leslie Robertson, who should know a thing or two about it, had to say. Have a look at "impact of a plane ".

www.bbc.co.uk...


Typical insensitive OS defender, not interested in people that died, why not ridicule more dead peopel eh.

Well he had faith in the building, and there was no reason for it to come down, but he cannot build a building to withstand it being rigged with explosives can he!

No thanks to your link, the video I posted is more relevant than anyone else, the man knew the building, so stop trying to divert away from the video I posted.

The man knew the building would take multiple plane hits, but explosives are a different kettle of fish.



Your guy was vastly unqualified to offer an opinion in comparison with Leslie Robertson and, even then, he only expressed it as his belief.

And it is not a belief that makes any sense. How many multiple plane strikes are the Towers supposed to absorb ? 10, 20, a thousand ?




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Anyone here know why NIST would have so grossly mis- represented the actual event in their WT-7 animation?
The "buckling" of the building as shown in their animation in no way reflects reality. I wonder why?




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Dinogur
 



How could some one be so brain-washed...


People believe what they want to believe. You can see examples of this all over ATS. Some would much rather take the blue pill, as long as they can live happily.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



But a skyscraper is a skyscraper.....


Really? That statement answers a lot of questions about your questions. So all buildings that you unilateraly determine to be skyscrapers are exactly alike in form, function, strength and weakness? Amazing.


No you just come up with semantic crap.

Skyscrapers must all deal with the GRAVITY PROBLEM.

The lower levels must support the weight above. That is true with all buildings but with skyscrapers this means the levels cannot all be identical. Steel columns must get thicker toward the bottom. The building must withstand the torque created by the wind.

psik



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I CONCLUDED it was impossible within two weeks.

And now, at least, you're saying IF its impossible. That is progress! And how did you reach your conclusion without the data YOU insist is minimally required?

The problem is getting other people to come to the same conclusion when they don't even agree or understand the necessary data to do the analysis.

So the problem is that everyone else is wrong and you're right.

How does the steel in a 1300 foot skyscraper have to be distributed just so it can hold itself up?

Vertically? Don't even know what the question here may be.

What OFFICIAL SOURCE has provided that data in human readable form or even discussed it in TEN YEARS.

NIST? Don't know anything they published that is not capable of being read by a human being. However, and you are proof of this, that does not mean every human being will understand it.

And then the Physics Profession can't be bothered with asking that question either. Not even David Chandler that I have heard. But he can talk about tons of steel hurled horizontally 600 feet.

Actually, I am little curious about what you think the "physics profession" does for a living. Do you really think they sit around debating plane crashes and building collapses?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 



No - are talking about if aircraft impact would topple the WTC

Made set of calculations of lateral forces on building from such a crash

Found that a crashing plane would generate force of 13 million foot lbs

Building could resist a force of 17 million foot lbs

Ergo would not fall down from aircraft impact

Forgot to figure effects of post crash fires on building structure ........



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Your guy was vastly unqualified to offer an opinion in comparison with Leslie Robertson and, even then, he only expressed it as his belief.

And it is not a belief that makes any sense. How many multiple plane strikes are the Towers supposed to absorb ? 10, 20, a thousand ?


Frank A. DeMartini, Manager of WTC Construction & Project Management sure knew what he was talking about, but his following statement does not fit the OS you are agressively defending, so you'll never accept his statement.


"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."


Multiple would at least mean more than one, which is enough, becuase only one plane hit each tower. So it can be safe to say at the very least 2, the steel frames could support a 2000% load.

The man was a hero, and you are mocking him. How disgusting.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by thegameisup
 



No - are talking about if aircraft impact would topple the WTC

Made set of calculations of lateral forces on building from such a crash

Found that a crashing plane would generate force of 13 million foot lbs

Building could resist a force of 17 million foot lbs

Ergo would not fall down from aircraft impact

Forgot to figure effects of post crash fires on building structure ........


Is this some more of your magical science?

Fires don't bring down steel framed building, never have, never will.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 



I believe that the building probably could....


Believe...Probably....Could. Please note those words.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup

Originally posted by Alfie1

Your guy was vastly unqualified to offer an opinion in comparison with Leslie Robertson and, even then, he only expressed it as his belief.

And it is not a belief that makes any sense. How many multiple plane strikes are the Towers supposed to absorb ? 10, 20, a thousand ?


Frank A. DeMartini, Manager of WTC Construction & Project Management sure knew what he was talking about, but his following statement does not fit the OS you are agressively defending, so you'll never accept his statement.


"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."


Multiple would at least mean more than one, which is enough, becuase only one plane hit each tower. So it can be safe to say at the very least 2, the steel frames could support a 2000% load.

The man was a hero, and you are mocking him. How disgusting.


I am not mocking him but pointing out that Leslie Robertson, who was actually central to the design, doesn't agree with him.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by thegameisup
 



I believe that the building probably could....


Believe...Probably....Could. Please note those words.


Also note what he says about the mosquito netting.

You can cheery pick all day long, but it does not change the fact they were brought down by controlled demoltion..



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I wish people would stop calling it the " Official story ".
The governments story is a theory so it should be called the " official theory" as they have never given us any proof as to what happened and who did it.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by crawdad1914
 



Here is the video uploaded by NIST explaining the collapse of WT-7
With all the controversy surrounding WT-7, why would the NIST put out a report and a video simulation that does not jive with reality? Where is the "buckling" on the corners of the building as shown in the simulation?




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



I CONCLUDED it was impossible within two weeks.

And now, at least, you're saying IF its impossible. That is progress! And how did you reach your conclusion without the data YOU insist is minimally required?


Suppose you start with the assumption that each LEVEL of the WTC weighed 1000 tons.

That would mean the bottom LEVEL had to be strong enough to support the weight of 109,000 tons. But the top LEVEL only had to support the roof. So coming down from the top every LEVEL had to support more and more weight. That meant adding more steel thereby increasing the weight. But any increase in weight on any LEVEL high up the building meant that all LEVELS below that had to support that increase in weight.

So the trick in designing skyscrapers is distributing the mass to get the necessary strength plus a safety factor for the live load. Then the wind must be taken into account. So a small portion of the building falling from above must accelerate mass below greater than itself in addition to disabling the supports for that mass which would require energy thereby slowing itself down making it more difficult to destroy more LEVELS. Exactly what my model demonstrates.

No, the collapse time from that height is too short for the north tower to have done it just because of the airliner and fire. So architects and structural engineers and physicists should have been talking about the mass distribution in a self supporting structures within months of 9/11.

Now they have painted themselves into a corner with this BS and expect people to just BELIEVE even though they leave out info which apparently they have not even asked about.

psik



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by thegameisup

Originally posted by Alfie1

Your guy was vastly unqualified to offer an opinion in comparison with Leslie Robertson and, even then, he only expressed it as his belief.

And it is not a belief that makes any sense. How many multiple plane strikes are the Towers supposed to absorb ? 10, 20, a thousand ?


Frank A. DeMartini, Manager of WTC Construction & Project Management sure knew what he was talking about, but his following statement does not fit the OS you are agressively defending, so you'll never accept his statement.


"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."


Multiple would at least mean more than one, which is enough, becuase only one plane hit each tower. So it can be safe to say at the very least 2, the steel frames could support a 2000% load.

The man was a hero, and you are mocking him. How disgusting.


That is the quote i was looking for, by Frank A. DeMartini. This proved to me that the WTC Building 1 & 2 had no reason to fall with the collision of an aircraft


go to around 2.50, so what you are telling me is that this man Barry Jennings is a lier and didnt hear explosions go off in the WTC building 7...



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 



Also note what he says about the mosquito netting.

Yes, that is very important. Please note that he doesn't mention what he thinks would happen if the plane were large enough and going fast enough to also damage the inner columns. Also note he was the construction manager, not a designer.

You can cheery pick all day long....

Oh, I will. And by "cherry pick" you mean note the words actually used.

....but it does not change the fact they were brought down by controlled demoltion.

In a way you are correct. Like you can't change the "fact" that I played hockey on the moon or the "fact" that I can fly when I flap my arms.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by lambros56
I wish people would stop calling it the " Official story ".
The governments story is a theory so it should be called the " official theory" as they have never given us any proof as to what happened and who did it.


So no proof would include the evidence submitted to the Mossaoui trial ??

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by lambros56
I wish people would stop calling it the " Official story ".
The governments story is a theory so it should be called the " official theory" as they have never given us any proof as to what happened and who did it.


So no proof would include the evidence submitted to the Mossaoui trial ??

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...



No.
That doesn't prove the official theory.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

I am not mocking him but pointing out that Leslie Robertson, who was actually central to the design, doesn't agree with him.


Here is some official information.


NIST found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft-impact analysis, involving impact of a Boeing 707 at 600 miles per hour (970 km/h), but the original documentation of the study, which was part of the building's 1,200-page structural analysis, was lost when the Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the WTC 1; the copy was lost in WTC 7.

Sadek, Fahim. Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers(NCSTAR 1-2 appendix A). NIST 2005. pp. 305-307



Leslie Robertson, one of the chief engineers working on the design of the World Trade Center, has since claimed to have personally considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner—a Boeing 707—which might be lost in the fog and flying at relatively low speeds, seeking to land at JFK Airport or Newark Airport.


Funny how NIST lost the paper in WTC7 eh, convenient that!

As I say, if it does not fit your official story that you agressively defend, then you don't want to know.



edit on 23-7-2012 by thegameisup because: quote adjustment



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



I cant be bothered replying to your fantasy comments, so I'll just link to one I just made to your colleague dave.

www.abovetopsecret.com...






top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join