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.

 

Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

page: 32
13
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
These things tend to go in circles, with Howard picking on little bits and pieces of information here and there, making a very generous use of the disinfo tactics listed on this page. It seems his speciality is to simply give the official story a good paint job, even while presenting scientifically flawed information.

What ever became of that angular momentum problem, Howard? Where did the momentum of the top floors go?



See that tilt?

When those floors tilted out like that, they had momentum.

But then the floors stopped falling in those directions while continuing to fall straight down.

Where did that momentum go?

From Newton's first law of motion, to the laws of momentum, to the specific laws of angular momentum that this action breaks (at least if you accept the official story), we have a problem here. Objects don't just stop falling in a certain direction, and especially so with such a massive, unbelievably heavy object. The momentum would have been incredible.

It was either countered by a balancing force (in this case, equal and opposite would apply for a complete stop), or the floors would have had their frames *somehow* shattered to destroy the momentum of the object by destroying the structure of the object itself.

Well, it's safe to say there was no balancing/equal and opposite force. Superman wasn't there on 9/11, unfortunately, to push back on the buildings to counter the vast momentum. Any evidence God intervened with a holy miracle? No? Well then I guess we'll have to assume the only possible answer: the frames of those top floors were shattered. I wonder what did it.


And I suppose you still put on that the massive squibs going down the building were caused by pent-up air that magically directed itself down shafts and around offices to blow concrete dust (oh, and I won't even ask you where that must've came from) scores and scores of feet into the air. And I suppose the air was also magic in the fact that it managed to pressurize itself immensely even right after huge squibs that would have allegedly decompressed large areas of the building, as there were many massive squibs that ocurred simultaneously or one-after-another. And I'm sure you're aware how we can go on with these points.

Unless you're actually and finally going to post some evidence for the official case this time around, Howie, you know the discussions are going to end as they always do.




posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Yep. Thank you Zamboni for adding yet another confirmation of what we've been saying all along. Please do stick around because NIST's WTC7 collapse whitewash is to be published soon and we could use you fighting with us on the side of the truth. Don't get yourself banned over Howard, he's not so bad once you get to know him and his ways.

Armed with the truth, we shall prevail.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   

When those floors tilted out like that, they had momentum.

But then the floors stopped falling in those directions while continuing to fall straight down.

Where did that momentum go?


Nowhere... the upper tower kept tilting, but the tilting speed was kinda low. Tower shattered into peaces and disappeared in dust before it tilted more.


And I suppose you still put on that the massive squibs going down the building were caused by pent-up air


If it wasn't air, then what it was? Explosives don't cause that long-lasting pressures. If there were explosives at that floor, all windows would have explosed out. Or are you saying, that when bomb explosed, the pressure erupted out at only one window?


oh, and I won't even ask you where that must've came from


It came from floor structures when they broke. Simple.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 06:00 AM
link   
I have been looking at a few interviews nearly every person thinks of it as a bomb some people say a multipul explosions if you go to this link it shows footage of it smoking then i shake then more smoke then the collapse

www.whatreallyhappened.com...



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zamboni
I am trained in structural engineering (University of Western Ontario - Canada) ...


Are you a P.E. then? If so, where are you licensed? Where did you complete your E.I.T.?

If not, then just how extensive is your training? Did you get a degree in structural engineering? Was it your major?

No matter.

Since you are a “trained engineer” then maybe you can help me. It seems that many people on this board have some strange ideas on how building structures work and what make a building stand up.

So, are you willing to help me with a few simple concepts?

First of all, one of the common issues that people have difficulty understanding is the relationship between the load bearing capacity of individual structural members and the load bearing capacity of the structure as a whole.

Can you help explain the concept of “live load” and “dead load?”

A Boeing 767 weighs approximately 175,000 lbs empty. Would the aircraft components that remained in the building after the impact be considered live load or dead load?

What happens if an individual structural member has a capacity to demand ratio that exceeds 1?

After the airplanes hit, there were significant losses in the load bearing capability of those portions of the buildings directly damaged by the impact. What happened to those loads formerly carried by the those beams columns and trusses that were severed, or damaged by the impact? What happened to the CDR’s to the adjacent undamaged columns, beams and trusses after the impact.

How did the building redistribute loads from the exterior walls to the interior core?


Originally posted by Zamboni
and even IF the collapse was initiated at the point of plane impact the entire structure would have only partially collapsed and surely not in symetry.


Would you agree with the NIST assessment that the south face (opposite of the impact point) of WTC 1 is buckling inward shortly before the collapse in this picture?




Can you explain the concept of a buckling failure in layman’s terms?

Do you think that the exterior columns of the WTC behaved like a shell?

If not, what do you think the effect of the buckling of the south face would have had on the structure as a whole?

How far do you think the south wall would have been able to buckle inward before the ability of those columns to support their loads was reduced to the point of failure?

At that point, where did those loads go?


Originally posted by Zamboni
Also the time for a complete collapse due to the absurd 'pancake' theory would have been at least 20-30 secs since each structural joint would have resisted failure, not to mention the central support structure was designed inside of the floor truss structure(47 columns).


As the top of the building fell, would the buckling of the columns have preceded the falling mass?

Why or Why not?

Is there a difference between a situation where the failure is caused by a progressive buckle moving through a structure and a failure caused by multiple shearing of bolts and connections moving through a structure?

What about a combination of both, is this possible?

Assuming that no buckling of the lower columns occurred before the top portion impacted the lower portion, what would be the general percentage of the original load that the falling mass of the top would have when it strikes the lower portion? (energy of a falling object).

What portion of that energy would you estimate to have been absorbed by the “resistance” of the joints?

What would happen to the excess energy not absorbed by the joints in resisting failure?


Originally posted by Zamboni
However the video evidence shows pulverization and disintegration at near free fall acceleration which means the internal central structure must have failed throughtout the 110 stories in a simultaneous dynamic action .


If the entire structure failed simultaneously, then the entire building would have fallen simultaneously. In other words, the bottom portion would have dropped at the same time the top portion did. The videos I’ve seen distinctly show the collapse starting at the impact points and progressing downward with the bottom of the building not collapsing until the top portion reached it.

How could this have happened if the “internal central structure failed throughout the 110 stories in a simultaneous dynamic action


Originally posted by Zamboni
The key to understanding the demolition of the WTC's is to know that nearly ALL the concrete floor and wall structures were pulverized ...


What concrete wall structures? Surely you are aware that the WTC towers did not use an masonry walls in their construction, or are you talking about the drywall?

As for the lightweight concrete floors, you do realize that the slabs were only four inches thick, don’t you? (to help visualize this relationship, at 40,000 square feet per floor area by 4” thick, the ratio of area to thickness for each floor was approximately the same as 5 sheets of typing paper stacked on top of each other. )


Originally posted by Zamboni
a simple collapse would have left thousands of tonnes of broken pieces of concrete piled high above ground zero.


With none of the pieces more than 4 inches thick, right?

For 110 floors that would have meant a pile about 36 feet high. The “Pile” appears to me to have been higher than that.

In addition, the “Pile” would have started in the basement levels.

What does this prove exactly?

Do you have conclusive proof that there were no 4” thick chunks of concrete in the “Pile?”


Originally posted by Zamboni
And a number of static vertical support columns would have remained standing at least a few hundred feet in the air


That is just absurd.

I’ll tell you what, why don’t you contact some of your old professors from the University of Western Ontario and ask them what they think of your theory.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by msdos464

Where did that momentum go?


Nowhere... the upper tower kept tilting


Nah; watch the video below. In the first 2 or 3 seconds of the South Tower's collapse, it tilted somewhere around 15 degrees outwards. Then it stopped. Totally. Momentum does not behave like that, going from 15 degrees in 2 or 3 seconds to 0 degrees further for the rest of the collapse. That's what we mean when we say disappearance of angular momentum.

Video of South Tower Collapse.
Still frames of the above video.


Tower shattered into peaces and disappeared in dust before it tilted more.


Yeah, it shattered into pieces, but not from the collapse, as you'll see the collapse had barely begun and the top floors were still very much intact. That pic I posted was about where the momentum disappeared. Do those floors look shattered to pieces? Not from the outside. Still solid. The collapse had barely started, and the disappearance of momentum was pretty much total.


If it wasn't air, then what it was? Explosives don't cause that long-lasting pressures.


I doubt there was any pressure built up that early on. The theory that holds up best is that those squibs were the actual explosions that brought the tower down. Pressure has nothing to do with the squib theory.


If there were explosives at that floor, all windows would have explosed out.


Why would that have to be the case? Have you ever seen a controlled demolition? The charges blow outward, directed at specific beams/columns/etc.


Or are you saying, that when bomb explosed, the pressure erupted out at only one window?


Like I said, explosive charges, in demolitions, are aimed towards specific beams, etc. Explosives aren't just set around a building and blown up randomly to bring a building down; they're planted and aimed very precisely. So I'm saying explosives caused those squibs, yes, and, yes, they took out small areas of windows.

What other theory is even plausible when it comes to squibs? So far I've seen screen smudges (
), "vibrations" going down the building, and pressurized air, of which none hold up and have been rebutted numerous times on ATS. What evidence is there explosives could not cause such explosions from the buildings? None, really, because we all know explosives do things like that. That's what they're made for.



oh, and I won't even ask you where that must've came from


It came from floor structures when they broke. Simple.


Plain and simple: the collapses had not yet reached the floors where the squibs occurred.




So what exactly destroyed that concrete?



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   

So what exactly destroyed that concrete?


Well...

What is circled is air excaping, caused from the collapsing floors, not from "squibs"...



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master

So what exactly destroyed that concrete?


Well...

What is circled is air excaping, caused from the collapsing floors, not from "squibs"...


And there is certainly not any proof that the dust plume was, in fact, pulverized concrete.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
LOL maybe it was Pixie Dust Howard.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Plain and simple: the collapses had not yet reached the floors where the squibs occurred.


I would say that "the collapses of outer walls had not yet reached the floors where the squibs occurred."


That's what we mean when we say disappearance of angular momentum.


Even if the momentum disappeares, the tilting doesn't stop. As a car that's driving at 100 km/h and stops accelerating. Velocity doesn't drop to 0 km/h, it keeps going (if resisting forces were zero).

IMO it didn't stop tilting, it just slowed. I'll make a graph later today.

[edit on 27-10-2005 by msdos464]



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
LOL maybe it was Pixie Dust Howard.


Smoke from the fires, dust from the building, and yes, there was probably some concrete dust in there, but far more of it was from the drywall partitions, ceiling tiles, and other, more friable, building materials.

To assume thatthe dust plume was just concrete dust makes no sense.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

frame slope angle angle change
at each frame
=========================================
30 1:0 90,00
60 500:10 88,85 -0,3833
80 640:15 88,66 -0,0095
100 560:30 86,93 -0,0865
120 550:70 82,75 -0,209
140 520:110 78,06 -0,2345
160 500:140 74,36 -0,185
180 400:135 71,35 -0,1505
200 400:160 68,12 -0,1575


Images can be seen here: koti.mbnet.fi...

As you see, tower didn't stop tilting... after frame 220 smoke and dust covers it.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I would like to ad one more thing about the whole tilting issue. One of the problems is also that the top of the tower moved in 3 dimensions, while the video is only 2D.

This has caused some misinterpretations based on the apparent motion of the top as viewed from certain angles.

For instance one video apparently shows the antenna dropping downward at the beginning of the collapse, leading some to speculate that the core columns failed first. However, it turns out that this is an optical illusion. The tower is actually tilting away from the viewer.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

HowardRoark wrote:
So, are you willing to help me with a few simple concepts?


Careful with those DCRs Howard...your engineer friend hasn't been round the ATS 9-11 merry-go-round a hundred times and is still fresh. He might actually bother to take the time to explain how the towers already had structural components with DCRs in excess of 1.0 and that buildings do not magically collapse when certain components exceed this. He also might take the time to explain the vast difference between the effects of shear force as opposed to axial force in regards to those same DCRs. He might remind you of terms such as "allowable stress design". He might clarify your "live load" by explaining the difference between in-service live load and design live load. He may even do the calculations which you avoid so nicely and show that the load redistribution would indeed be enough to take up the slack, with DCRs still under 1.0.

Be careful what you wish for... Remember, the seemingly-strong supports of bogus whitewash constructions lose 70-90% of their strength when subjected to scrutiny temperatures greater than 'cursory'. We wouldn't want the official story to come crumbling down and pulverize itself to dust in a "global pancake collapse" while everyone's watching for the umpteenth time, now would we?


[edit on 2005-10-27 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master

So what exactly destroyed that concrete?


Well...

What is circled is air excaping, caused from the collapsing floors, not from "squibs"...


I'd like to see your figures that lead you to believe that that air could pulverized concrete slabs into dust.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
And there is certainly not any proof that the dust plume was, in fact, pulverized concrete.


Nor do I suppose there is much evidence that the sky is actually blue, objectively. Right?

Read up on some common sense, Howie, and then watch the videos. All that dust that is seen coming out of the WTC Towers, the biggest dust cloud in recorded history if I'm not mistaken, is pulverized materials from within the buildings; ie, concrete. There is no reason to believe it was anything else. There were craploads and craploads of concrete dust everywhere that day. Look at the streets: they were covered in it. It was everywhere, and it all came from those buildings as they collapsed. Now watch the buildings collapse, so that you may see the dust as it actually pours out of the buildings. See the squibs? Guess what: the same kind of dust. What a surprise! Would have never seen that one coming. Just like I would never have expected that most all of the concrete slabs in those buildings no longer exist.

No one was storing huge jugs of dust by the windows, Howard.

Maybe it was pixie dust, right?



Smoke from the fires, dust from the building, and yes, there was probably some concrete dust in there, but far more of it was from the drywall partitions, ceiling tiles, and other, more friable, building materials.


For the dust to have been crushed drywall makes absolutely no more sense than if it were concrete. The collapses had not yet reached the areas where the squibs occurred. Not even close in one case, where a squib was some 50 floors off. You could play all day with absurd little theories to try to make the official story work... and apparently that's what you're doing.


This has caused some misinterpretations based on the apparent motion of the top as viewed from certain angles.


It took you long enough to get up the balls to say something like this.





There is a tilt there, Howard. Argue with the pictures. There are three different angles there.

If you can't see it, as obviously apparent as it is, then I don't even know what else I can say.

To say you see no tilt there, simply to try to cover for the official explanation, is about as close-minded, one-sided and biased as one could possibly be. It's insane, some of the things you will say in an attempt to discredit serious issues, just so you can cover for the official line. I swear, if you are really a disinfo agent, then you must be the clown of them to try to tell us there is no tilt.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   

I'd like to see your figures that lead you to believe that that air could pulverized concrete slabs into dust.


Now bsbray...I didn't say the air pulverized the concrete now did I ? I said that what was circled was air excaping from the collapsing floors, didn't I...

What pulverized the concrete was the weight of the upper floors above the impact zone when it collapsed, not so called "squibs"...



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

This has caused some misinterpretations based on the apparent motion of the top as viewed from certain angles.


It took you long enough to get up the balls to say something like this.

. . .

There is a tilt there, Howard. Argue with the pictures. There are three different angles there.

If you can't see it, as obviously apparent as it is, then I don't even know what else I can say.

To say you see no tilt there, simply to try to cover for the official explanation, is about as close-minded, one-sided and biased as one could possibly be. It's insane, some of the things you will say in an attempt to discredit serious issues, just so you can cover for the official line. I swear, if you are really a disinfo agent, then you must be the clown of them to try to tell us there is no tilt.


WTF are you talking about?

:LOL:

My comment was about some initial claims that the collapse of the north tower started with the collapse of the antenna into the building. This is what appears to happen in a video taken from a certain vantage point. However, this is not what happened.

What you are rambling about in that post is beyond me.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Read up on some common sense, Howie, and then watch the videos. All that dust that is seen coming out of the WTC Towers, the biggest dust cloud in recorded history if I'm not mistaken, is pulverized materials from within the buildings; ie, concrete. There is no reason to believe it was anything else. There were craploads and craploads of concrete dust everywhere that day.



bsbray, the WTC dust consisted mostly of gypsum (from drywall) then you had your concrete particles, cellulose fibers, fiberglass, and other miscellaneous materials.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

bsbray, the WTC dust consisted mostly of gypsum (from drywall) then you had your concrete particles, cellulose fibers, fiberglass, and other miscellaneous materials.



do you have a link to the analysis, howard? i read it on line once, just after hunter s. thompson committed suicide. and then, i couldn't find it.

it wasn't "mostly gypsum", though. i think plastic was something like 20%?, human tissue was surprisingly high, 2%?, ..i forget, anyway, a link to that lab analysis would be really cool, because it was surprising to see the makeup of that dust. maybe i saved it to disk somewhere. it was like everything that was in the tower had been turned into dustat about the same rate(time is always an important consideration in determining the energy input/output of chemical/physical reactions. like, it's harder to turn diamond to dust than it is to turn gypsum to dust, or it's harder to turn people into dust than gypsum, etc...)



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
The information I have found indicates that the percentages of various components were quite variable. However, the following links describe some of the constituents.

pubs.acs.org...

www.eohsi.rutgers.edu...

www.janegalt.net...




top topics



 
13
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join