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.

 

So Just Fire Brought Down WTC7 In A Perfect Free Fall Collapse ?

page: 15
34
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by pheonix358
 


The collapses took between 25-30 seconds. Not really fast at all.

]


Yes, that is fast. If my house fell down, and it's a one story, in 25-30 seconds, I'd think that extremely fast. Now add 99+ more stories in that timeframe.....that is fast!

Just please show us any, I mean ANY, steel highrise with ANY type of damage, that has collapsed completely like the towers and 7. You can't, well unless you show us a CD of course.




posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
Just please show us any, I mean ANY, steel highrise with ANY type of damage, that has collapsed completely like the towers and 7. You can't, well unless you show us a CD of course.


I am not saying it happens a lot (luckely) but here is an example:

upload.wikimedia.org...

Arguing that something can not happen because it has not happened before is a fallacy by the way.
edit on 11-6-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by SunnyDee
Just please show us any, I mean ANY, steel highrise with ANY type of damage, that has collapsed completely like the towers and 7. You can't, well unless you show us a CD of course.


I am not saying it happens a lot (luckely) but here is an example:

upload.wikimedia.org...

Arguing that something can not happen because it has not happened before is a fallacy by the way.
edit on 11-6-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


What is this picture? what happened? what country is that. looks like
some poor country in Asia.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by FirstCasualty

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FirstCasualty
No way. Lets assume for a moment - and this would be a HUGE assumption -
that tje fires were hot enough and all the structual post and beams as well
as concrete and rebar, all snapped at exactly the same time (this is
absurd, i dont know.why i am entertaining this) and the weight of the above
floors came crashing down perfectly impacting the floors bellow. EVEN THEN
the energy of the forces pushing down would gradually make it AWAY from
the remainder of the building where resistance is lease. I would picture the top
section flipping onto its back on top of the bottom section and then spilling
over the side.


Is this a joke post? I honestly can't tell. For a start the WTCs and WTC7s were not a post and beam structure. They were steel framed, using concrete only for flooring.

Secondly, you'd imagine the upper section flipping onto its back? I don't know what has brought you to this conclusion but you need to head back to the classroom immediately. I don't mean this as an insult either, you've pictured something in your mind which would be so completely
impossible it shocks me you can even consider it.


your right. I was foolish to even entertain the idea. that wont happen again
since i.now see how you take advantage of the situation.

I 'took advantage' of your ignorance. The motto of this site is 'Deny Ignorance'. Surely you're not opposed to this. Are you embarrassed by your mistakes or angry that they were pointed out? It seems like the latter.



You think theat WTC 1 and 2 demolished themselves under its own weight

I cant tell you how funny that is.

3000+ deaths doesn't seem that funny to me. Nor does it seem funny that this has the backing of worldwide engineering groups and professional expert groups like CTBUH.


If I were you and believed that
I would NEVER step one foot inside a highrise again. Its too dangerous
apparently by your understanding. It can take just as long to
completely evacuate a building as it would for a little carasine (spelling?)
to completely destroy a 110 story highrise.

I certainly wouldn't step into a skyscraper that was on fire and had been hit by aircraft. Are you telling me you would? I'm not a firefighter so I'm not that sort of hero.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by FirstCasualty
 


All the information you ask for is in the title of the image.

What does it matter what country is was? Is the laws of physics different in different countries?



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FirstCasualty

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FirstCasualty
No way. Lets assume for a moment - and this would be a HUGE assumption -
that tje fires were hot enough and all the structual post and beams as well
as concrete and rebar, all snapped at exactly the same time (this is
absurd, i dont know.why i am entertaining this) and the weight of the above
floors came crashing down perfectly impacting the floors bellow. EVEN THEN
the energy of the forces pushing down would gradually make it AWAY from
the remainder of the building where resistance is lease. I would picture the top
section flipping onto its back on top of the bottom section and then spilling
over the side.


Is this a joke post? I honestly can't tell. For a start the WTCs and WTC7s were not a post and beam structure. They were steel framed, using concrete only for flooring.

Secondly, you'd imagine the upper section flipping onto its back? I don't know what has brought you to this conclusion but you need to head back to the classroom immediately. I don't mean this as an insult either, you've pictured something in your mind which would be so completely
impossible it shocks me you can even consider it.


your right. I was foolish to even entertain the idea. that wont happen again
since i.now see how you take advantage of the situation.

I 'took advantage' of your ignorance. The motto of this site is 'Deny Ignorance'. Surely you're not opposed to this. Are you embarrassed by your mistakes or angry that they were pointed out? It seems like the latter.



You think theat WTC 1 and 2 demolished themselves under its own weight

I cant tell you how funny that is.

3000+ deaths doesn't seem that funny to me. Nor does it seem funny that this has the backing of worldwide engineering groups and professional expert groups like CTBUH.


If I were you and believed that
I would NEVER step one foot inside a highrise again. Its too dangerous
apparently by your understanding. It can take just as long to
completely evacuate a building as it would for a little carasine (spelling?)
to completely destroy a 110 story highrise.

I certainly wouldn't step into a skyscraper that was on fire and had been hit by aircraft. Are you telling me you would? I'm not a firefighter so I'm not that sort of hero.


so you avoid addressing any point i made and jump on 'deny ignorance'.

you attack mt choices of words rather than the problems i am pointing out
about your claims. flipped on its back could have read "fell on its side" but
you instead tried to assume i meant the building had legs and swumg its
arms into a back flip????

you have no points to make. you just believe the building crushed itself.
that is some seriouse ignorance right there. completely absurd. half baked
and void of any logic.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by FirstCasualty
 




You think theat WTC 1 and 2 demolished themselves under its own weight

I cant tell you how funny that is. If I were you and believed that
I would NEVER step one foot inside a highrise again. Its too dangerous
apparently by your understanding.

So why is it that we don't see every structual engineer on the planet screaming "cover up!"?

Even of those on a&e most are simply asking for a new investigation to iron out points. Not that they say it was impossible. P.S. Most are not structual engineers anyway.

Why arn't Iranian engineers screaming "Impossible!"?
Why didn't Hugo Chavez get his engineers to do a public protest?
Did we buy off Russian engineers with bushels of wheat like the Moon hoax claims?
If someone paid off all the engineers on the planet, why was there no mass exodus from the labor force?

In 2010 the US had 70,000 structural engineers. Heaven knows how many the rest of the planet has.
And yet YOU know better than they do????



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by FirstCasualty
 


All the information you ask for is in the title of the image.

What does it matter what country is was? Is the laws of physics different in different countries?


No but laws for sysmic engineering are very different. i cant see the info
i apologize but if that was from an earthquake in some poor country
i would understand why



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by FirstCasualty
 




You think theat WTC 1 and 2 demolished themselves under its own weight

I cant tell you how funny that is. If I were you and believed that
I would NEVER step one foot inside a highrise again. Its too dangerous
apparently by your understanding.

So why is it that we don't see every structual engineer on the planet screaming "cover up!"?

Even of those on a&e most are simply asking for a new investigation to iron out points. Not that they say it was impossible. P.S. Most are not structual engineers anyway.

Why arn't Iranian engineers screaming "Impossible!"?
Why didn't Hugo Chavez get his engineers to do a public protest?
Did we buy off Russian engineers with bushels of wheat like the Moon hoax claims?
If someone paid off all the engineers on the planet, why was there no mass exodus from the labor force?

In 2010 the US had 70,000 structural engineers. Heaven knows how many the rest of the planet has.
And yet YOU know better than they do????




If any engineers had anything to say about it, why would YOU know.
does everything run through you and ATS or something.

I have spoken about 9/11 to probably 100 people. they already knew it
was a lie amd not one of them has heard of ATS.

dispite what people here believe, this site isn't that popular.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FirstCasualty
 




I have spoken about 9/11 to probably 100 people. they already knew it
was a lie amd not one of them has heard of ATS.

A football player pats his lawyers butt and it makes national news.
70,000 engineers can't get an article in edgewise?

Or are all the reporters old and new being paid hush money too?
Did you consider the new reporters have to recieve payments to avoid and 911 conspiracy stories?
Just how do they pay off all the overseas reporters? Paypal???

Maybe I should become a reporter so I can get in on the hush money band wagon.
Where do the outer boundries of the conspiracy end?



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Also hush money is taxable.
Did they claim this money in April?
So I guess the IRS workers are in on it too.
So by default H&R Block knows something is going on. More hush money.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by FirstCasualty
 




I have spoken about 9/11 to probably 100 people. they already knew it
was a lie amd not one of them has heard of ATS.

A football player pats his lawyers butt and it makes national news.
70,000 engineers can't get an article in edgewise?

Or are all the reporters old and new being paid hush money too?
Did you consider the new reporters have to recieve payments to avoid and 911 conspiracy stories?
Just how do they pay off all the overseas reporters? Paypal???

Maybe I should become a reporter so I can get in on the hush money band wagon.
Where do the outer boundries of the conspiracy end?



I have no idea what you mean. are you saying engineers have been paid
to stay hush over this?? where did that come from? paypall????

i doubt any of that would be necessary and like most people they probably
just moved on with life. if it didnt affect them i doubt they read to hard
into it. aside from a quick chuckle about the idea of 'pancake theory'
at the water cooler... it was probably life as usuall.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FirstCasualty
so you avoid addressing any point i made and jump on 'deny ignorance'.

you attack mt choices of words rather than the problems i am pointing out
about your claims.

I don't see how I'm avoiding any point. I clearly addressed what you said as being based on a lack of understanding about the construction of the WTC. 'post and beam' is not the same as 'steel framed'.


flipped on its back could have read "fell on its side" but
you instead tried to assume i meant the building had legs and swumg its
arms into a back flip????

The two statements are not synonymous. Neither could the top of the WTCs 'fall on its side'. What would support the 45ft+ of completely open floor space?


you have no points to make. you just believe the building crushed itself.
that is some seriouse ignorance right there. completely absurd. half baked
and void of any logic.

And supported internationally by the most credentialed engineers and groups in the field. You might as well claim evolution is half baked and void of logic for all the good it will do you.

If you can't even get the basic construction of the building or its potential failure modes right, why should we believe you that this is so impossible?


If any engineers had anything to say about it, why would YOU know.
does everything run through you and ATS or something.

Research papers are typically published in journals. People read these journals. None so far has published any paper I am aware of that materially alters the conclusions of the NIST report. I can recommend you some reading if you'd like.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FirstCasualty
 


So your position is not that the collapses were impossible, but they were impossible in a country where they apply building codes such as they do in the USA?


If so, wouldn't the most obvious conspiracy for you to believe be the cover up for neglecting building codes, instead of the conspiracies that involved explosives and lots of secret agents?



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


I have been involved in flying and building experimental aircraft for sometime now . When testing landing gear you can roll the aircraft off 12 " blocks an the resulting deceleration force is about 3 Gs . Your 4 G's is wrong !
That's a far cry from a10 to 15 feet drop . The figure of 40 G's is a good one and that came from analysis of the failure of the Towers back when it happened .
A drop of 10 feet will give you 30 Gs .



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Note that Building 7 did not fall from the top down like the towers did. The whole building started down after the center columns were taken out . Building 7 collapse was not typical of the Towers falling .



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by FirstCasualty

your right. I was foolish to even entertain the idea. that wont happen again
since i.now see how you take advantage of the situation.

You think theat WTC 1 and 2 demolished themselves under its own weight

I cant tell you how funny that is. If I were you and believed that
I would NEVER step one foot inside a highrise again. Its too dangerous
apparently by your understanding. It can take just as long to
completely evacuate a building as it would for a little carasine (spelling?)
to completely destroy a 110 story highrise.


So you think tens of thousands of tons of steel and concrete falling is not a problem.

Lets see if you want to look at a 10KG weight falling?

(WARNING DON'T EVEN TRY IT)

If you had to stop the 10kg weight falling 3.3 mtrs (WTC floor height) within a 10cm or 0.1mtr distance then again in a 1cm or 0.01 mtr distance what would be the avg impact force.

I will give you some choices if stopped in 10cm or 0.1 mtr is the avg force

10kg 100kg or more

if stopped in 1cm or 0.01 mtrs is the avg force

100 kg 1000kg or more.

Now many of the angle cleats that the floor trusses rested on were sheared and were about 25mm thick or 0.025 mtrs many of the bolts were sheared they were about 16mm dia or about 0.016mtrs, all solid metal and many of them for each floor slab and they didn't stop the mass falling.

So lets us know what you think!

I will then give you the results and how to work them out yourself.
edit on 13-6-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

I don't see how I'm avoiding any point. I clearly addressed what you said as being based on a lack of understanding about the construction of the WTC. 'post and beam' is not the same as 'steel framed'.


There are still core and exterior columns. trusses that span between. Forget the trusses, concrete does not easily compress. The videos show the concrete was pulverized to dust. There was barely any concrete left when the entire building hit the ground. A large majority of it became that dust cloud that poisoned everyone.



The two statements are not synonymous. Neither could the top of the WTCs 'fall on its side'. What would support the 45ft+ of completely open floor space?

I am not following the 45+ feet, but what i meant by that was that the top section of the building, as it was starting to push its way down on the lower section, would begin shifting its weight to the exterior of the building. First of all, all the columns could not have snapped all at the same moment. If heat was the issue that caused the column failure then how would the heat have been evenly dispersed across all columns. if heat did cause the column failure then it would have began with just a few columns that took the heat the longest and then the building would begin to tilt. I believe we DID see that with the first tower that fell. The top section was out of plumb with the lower section. THAT would be expected.


So how did the tilting top section figure it was easier to smash its way through the building than just continue on its course off the side. If there was enough weight in the top sections to demolish the entire building below, would the weight no also been sufficient leverage to tear itself away from the rest of the beams and continue falling sideways? What caused it to correct itself to fall perfectly vertical?





And supported internationally by the most credentialed engineers and groups in the field. You might as well claim evolution is half baked and void of logic for all the good it will do you.


THE most credible huh? Well you go ahead and call each of these experts up and call them liars then. If you don't want to then post the names and credentials of YOUR experts and I will call them this evening after 6pm (long distance calling is cheaper) and call them liars. Lets see who hangs up the phone and who stays on to state their case

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

youtu.be...




Research papers are typically published in journals. People read these journals. None so far has published any paper I am aware of that materially alters the conclusions of the NIST report. I can recommend you some reading if you'd like.


Well considering it has been decreed by TWO presidents that investigations into 9/11 and questioning official reports is disrespectful to the victims and America as whole, and that any conspiracy theory surrounding this is outrageous, I doubt there were too many talking heads ready to pop up and stick their neck out. There are PLENTY of educated experts that do not agree with the official report of 9/11 who don't have as much to lose as the ones that you are demanding I accept the truth from.

NIST is not a reliable source of information in this case if the whole idea is that the government is covering up the real story. What?? cover up the story but let NIST say what ever it pleases. That would be the biggest flop in the history of cover ups... and there is a LONG history.
edit on 15-6-2013 by FirstCasualty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FirstCasualty

your right. I was foolish to even entertain the idea. that wont happen again
since i.now see how you take advantage of the situation.

You think theat WTC 1 and 2 demolished themselves under its own weight

I cant tell you how funny that is. If I were you and believed that
I would NEVER step one foot inside a highrise again. Its too dangerous
apparently by your understanding. It can take just as long to
completely evacuate a building as it would for a little carasine (spelling?)
to completely destroy a 110 story highrise.


So you think tens of thousands of tons of steel and concrete falling is not a problem.

Lets see if you want to look at a 10KG weight falling?

(WARNING DON'T EVEN TRY IT)

If you had to stop the 10kg weight falling 3.3 mtrs (WTC floor height) within a 10cm or 0.1mtr distance then again in a 1cm or 0.01 mtr distance what would be the avg impact force.

I will give you some choices if stopped in 10cm or 0.1 mtr is the avg force

10kg 100kg or more

if stopped in 1cm or 0.01 mtrs is the avg force

100 kg 1000kg or more.

Now many of the angle cleats that the floor trusses rested on were sheared and were about 25mm thick or 0.025 mtrs many of the bolts were sheared they were about 16mm dia or about 0.016mtrs, all solid metal and many of them for each floor slab and they didn't stop the mass falling.

So lets us know what you think!

I will then give you the results and how to work them out yourself.
edit on 13-6-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


I am not qualified to work out that math. Why don't you send that info to any of the engineering experts who's testimony I posted and ask them. It sounds like your trying to play a joke though.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by FirstCasualty
 


So your position is not that the collapses were impossible, but they were impossible in a country where they apply building codes such as they do in the USA?


If so, wouldn't the most obvious conspiracy for you to believe be the cover up for neglecting building codes, instead of the conspiracies that involved explosives and lots of secret agents?


Sure i suppose that is possible. But we haven't heard any finger pointing of the liability towards the original engineers, architects and contractors are we? My guess is that if they went that rout, then ALL the data would need to be brought in to court. If there was data missing whether by accident or on purpose it would then be a matter of public record.

It would be the easiest to blame the builders of this building i agree with you, but then it would be a matter of comparing notes. The original engineers and contractors have REAL files and notes on the project. Test reports of reinforcing that has been done since. What is the government going to bring to the table? A bunch of half baked pancake theory videos and a BS NIST report?

That would be an amusing court case
edit on 15-6-2013 by FirstCasualty because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join