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: 16
34
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by FirstCasualty
 



Lets look at some of your points


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.


First look at the second and third picture in this link.

www.stevespak.com...

The concrete in the floor slabs was 4" thick even if you gently placed the concrete from each floor on top of each other what height would it be 110 x 4 " = 440 inches divided by 12 the answer is 36.667 feet go back to the pictures above do you think 4" layers of concrete falling hundereds of feet with steel falling on it would survive intact


Do you have an analysis of the dust cloud to prove it was mostly concrete.

Really what else produced dust in that event sure part of it was concrete, what other building materials and other items could produce dust.

Having an idea of the construction and thinking about it the following could ALL be in the dust seen.
Sheetrock, the vermiculite insulation under the cladding , the sprayed on fire proofing, paint
the dust in areas that were not cleaned over the years, smoke particles, even paper and glass.


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


How can you tell what failed when NOBODY can we just see the result, the fires weakend the steel the South Tower although hit second it failed first because guess what it had a higher load above the impact area.


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


Easy the areas around the perimiter and core that were not damaged by impact or weakened by the fire provided resistance easy to understand if you have some knowledge of custruction or if you put some thought to it

edit on 15-6-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by FirstCasualty

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.


First it's not a joke I didn't know if you could work it out or would know were to look that's why I gave options so have a guess.

The reason I asked was YOU like some others seem to think tens of thousands of tons of falling concrete & steel would not be a problem so showing what 10kg could generate will shock you.

SO have a guess pick an option from the post.
edit on 15-6-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



If you watch some of those videos I posted you will see that highly qualified experts do not agree with you. Could you please post the name of more than a single expert that agrees with you like I did? Not some long drawn out video how to crush concrete but some that agrees with what you said pertaining to the WTC collapses .



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 05:38 AM
link   
 



15h.) Spamming: You will not Post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums. You will also not create more than one thread for your topic, or create multiple "slightly different" threads for a single topic.

Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review
 



edit on Mon Jun 17 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FirstCasualty
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



If you watch some of those videos I posted you will see that highly qualified experts do not agree with you. Could you please post the name of more than a single expert that agrees with you like I did? Not some long drawn out video how to crush concrete but some that agrees with what you said pertaining to the WTC collapses .


Well so far what have we learned YOU have no idea what you are talking about so all you do is link to videos that support your belief of what happened, Tens of thousands of engineers/architects world wide HAVEN'T joined AE911 truth or does that SIMPLE fact escape YOU!

Why because they don't want associated with IDIOT'S.

Ten's of thousands of tons of material fell that day, when that material hits one of the floor slabs what is there to resist it (see picture)



As you can see a piece of angle iron on the wall columns and the same on the core side of the truss. So each floor truss is only held in place with 2 pieces of angle iron. Now that's why I gave you the 10kg mass dropping problem which wouldn't even make a guess at even with options given to YOU!

Once a floor slab failed the only way was down the floors at the top had exactly the same connections as the floors at the bottom that's why other engineers using there common sense will not join AE911 truth that's why people like myself with 30+ years in construction and 15 years testing items on/off site to see the loads they will take can see that it's not a CD.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Well so far what have we learned YOU have no idea what you are talking about so all you do is link to videos that support your belief of what happened, Tens of thousands of engineers/architects world wide HAVEN'T joined AE911 truth or does that SIMPLE fact escape YOU!

Why because they don't want associated with IDIOT'S.


First of all I want to start out by saying you sounded very angry. That is fine, after all you would have to be a pretty hardcore patriot to spend any of your day arguing with 'IDIOTS" about a conspiracy that anybody who does not believe in has moved on with a decade ago. Your hardcore, so I doubt you will back down too darn easy. That being said, I have been on another thread pushing for truth in my own confrontational way while completely forgetting about this thread. YOU, my flagrant friend will not get the last word with me in the room.

Wut up?


As you can see a piece of angle iron on the wall columns and the same on the core side of the truss. So each floor truss is only held in place with 2 pieces of angle iron. Now that's why I gave you the 10kg mass dropping problem which wouldn't even make a guess at even with options given to YOU!


All the weight of the top section punching down on the remaining structure resulted in what was recorded on camera. To be brief, I believe that is your position. Here is what I have a problem with.

The heat from the jet fuel burning. We all saw the fireball...
www.tms.org...

Which seems consistent with what a 747 explosion would look like...


I think it would be pretty outrageous to say the heat produced was anywhere near the max temp of jet fuel. There could not have been any left after that fireball. The fire was also starving for oxygen based on the black cloud of smoke bellowing from the building.

The punch. The weight causing any affect on the structure. I don't agree with that because in order for all the weight to come down at a sudden impact, would require ALL the angle iron in the building to weaken at exactly the same time. There is no way that the angle iron could have weakened enough without a hot enough fire. We KNOW the flame outside was the jet fuel, and we KNOW that what was left was not burning efficiently based on the black smoke.

The swelling effect that I have seen these wild illustrations depict is not understandable. Again I suppose it would require a massive amount of heat to cause such an outrageous affect. The heat wasn't available. No jet fuel and black smoke. Sorry to keep going back to that but it is pretty important.

If the trusses did fail at the joints and slid down to bottom, then where did all the concrete go? How did it get ejected outside the building to an extent that the collapse actually looked like a concrete fountain? If this a matter of weight pushing down with unimaginable force I have to call BS. the first couple floors maybe. It couldn't have because there was no where close to enough heat to weaken welds or swell the building. But if it did there is no way that the floors bellow that have been holding that weight wouldn't give any resistance. The sudden crashing impact would have been absorbed in the first few floors and the broken off section above would have found another way down.


Once a floor slab failed the only way was down the floors at the top had exactly the same connections as the floors at the bottom that's why other engineers using there common sense will not join AE911 truth that's why people like myself with 30+ years in construction and 15 years testing items on/off site to see the loads they will take can see that it's not a CD.


You sound like you have every engineer who is not on this AE911 thing is standing beside you. LOL, I really doubt it son.

Maybe you can come up with some theoretical model to explain the collapse with a thousand variables and blah blah, but until you investigate explosives then you cannot rule them out. I would guess that if you calculated the possibility of explosives you would come up with a much more likely conclusion than some theoretical event that has NEVER happened.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
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.
Hm, you are all over the place with your deep knowledge, you seem to be very proud of it.

I will answer your question, if noone else does.

Firstly, you mix up force and mass, so I doubt you have any knowledge about physics at all, you're just regurgitating some sciolism you caught up somewhere. If 10 kg fall 3.3 meters, it's still only 10 kg. It only depends on the volume and density of the material of the object. As long as you don't understand this basic concept, you'll fail to understand anything you're being told and keep derailing threads with totally worthless arguments. Your arrogance is absolutely out of place.

With this said, a 10kg weight falling in a vacuum for 3.3 meters with 1g will have a kinetic energy of

E = m*g*h = 10kg * 9.81 m/s² * 3.3m = 323.73 Joules

so if decelerated again over a distance of 10 centimeters, g = E/m*d = 323.73J / (10kg * 0.1m) = 323.73 m/s², which is 33 g, or, to put it in your primitive layman's terms, "330 kg", and if stopped in 1 centimeter, 3300 kg (because g = E/m*d = 323.73J / (10kg * 0.01m) = 3237.3 m/s² which is 330 g).

Whatever you think this proves - it doesn't.

I have answered your question, although you don't even make a point with it, now you answer mine so you get what that discussion is about:

if you have eleven 10 kg weights - which sums up to 110 kg - and have to displace ten of them (100 kg) but are only allowed to touch the eleventh (10 kg), what are you gonna do, except switching subjects, distracting and sidetracking again?



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Akareyon
 


Quick reply as I have a rather busy day first at school my subjects were mostly PHYSICS based

Here in the UK I sat O levels in Maths , Physics, Applied Mechanics ( more in depth look at Physics) and Technical Drawing.

Then H grade Physics , Engineering science ( more in depth version of Physics) and Engineering Drawing.

Left school at just over 16 years old although most of my class were a year older had a job with a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company already set up in the design & drawing office and did civil engineer at college on a day release system from work.

The reason I ask the 10 kg weight question was (BEFORE YOU STUCK YOUR NEB IN) to show FC that DYNAMIC LOADS are far greater than static loads or are you going to try and argue that POINT!!!!

I have got a busy day today but will give a full reply to the BS in FC's reply to me above I will point out his FAILED ASSUMPTIONS!!!

So Akareyon I suggest you wind your neck back in



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Yeah, right. And I'm Napoleon, the Emperor of China, the inventor of the Bussard collector and Penicillin and in my leisure time I change water into wine and resurrect the dead.

Your alleged school career has no power on the internet. Your arguments need to be sound and valid. But they are not; you're so stuck on your "but the dynamic load was soooo huge" loop that you don't even understand anyone else's arguments. Just like you refuse to answer my simple question. Why is that? Because you don't really have a clue how the towers collapsed, you're happy with your "dynamic load" explanation and fail to see that it doesn't explain anything that happened on 9/11.

Your dynamic load must be great enough to accelerate the 9- to 10-fold of its own mass. How are you going to do that?



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon
Firstly, you mix up force and mass, so I doubt you have any knowledge about physics at all


It is kind of funny that you say this and then in your next post come with this:



Your dynamic load must be great enough to accelerate the 9- to 10-fold of its own mass.


dynamic load (a force) must be great enough to accelerate (forces accelerate?) the 9 to 10-fold of its own mass (forces have mass?)

You seem to be mixing up force and mass (or something else, its always quite a cryptic puzzle to figure out what you "mean to say"). According to your own line of reasoning, we should doubt that you have any knowledge about physics at all.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon


Your dynamic load must be great enough to accelerate the 9- to 10-fold of its own mass. How are you going to do that?


Gravity.

Here you will see a dynamic load great enough to accelerate 100+-fold of its own mass.





edit on 20-6-2013 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
dynamic load (a force) must be great enough to accelerate (forces accelerate?)
Yes.

As described by Newton's Second Law, acceleration is caused by a net force;
Source

Problem?

the 9 to 10-fold of its own mass (forces have mass?)

You seem to be mixing up force and mass (or something else, its always quite a cryptic puzzle to figure out what you "mean to say").
Is it really? This was the question I asked:

if you have eleven 10 kg weights - which sums up to 110 kg - and have to displace ten of them (100 kg) but are only allowed to touch the eleventh (10 kg), what are you gonna do, except switching subjects, distracting and sidetracking again?
So It's more than clear from the context what I "mean to say".

But thanks for switching subjects, distracting and sidetracking again, which seems to be the only way to defend the official conspiracy theory when Newton, Euler, Galileo and Archimedes disagree.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Akareyon


Your dynamic load must be great enough to accelerate the 9- to 10-fold of its own mass. How are you going to do that?


Gravity.

Here you will see a dynamic load great enough to accelerate 100+-fold of its own mass.


Beautiful, thanks for that great video! Yes, that's - more or less - how the towers came down. Small input energy - huge energy output.

By design.
edit on 21-6-2013 by Akareyon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon

Originally posted by -PLB-
dynamic load (a force) must be great enough to accelerate (forces accelerate?)
Yes.

As described by Newton's Second Law, acceleration is caused by a net force;
Source

Problem?


Yes. Forces cause acceleration, like your source says, they do not accelerate themselves, like you wrote.


Is it really? This was the question I asked:

if you have eleven 10 kg weights - which sums up to 110 kg - and have to displace ten of them (100 kg) but are only allowed to touch the eleventh (10 kg), what are you gonna do, except switching subjects, distracting and sidetracking again?
So It's more than clear from the context what I "mean to say".


It was also clear from the context what wmd2008 meant to say. Yet you made a big fuzz about him using the wrong term. Then, when you do the same yourself you of course argue it should be clear from context what you mean. That is called a double standard.


But thanks for switching subjects, distracting and sidetracking again, which seems to be the only way to defend the official conspiracy theory when Newton, Euler, Galileo and Archimedes disagree.


You seem very comfortable to respond in detail to this "sidetrack". As for your question, its has been explained to you in detail previously. What's the point of explaining it again? You will just ignore it again.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Forces cause acceleration, like your source says, they do not accelerate themselves, like you wrote.
I don't even....


I have a new theory: since you can't explain the buildings' compressions physically, they must have come down because sophistry.

edit on 21-6-2013 by Akareyon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Here is an answer to a couple of posts directed at me each poster will know who they are!

The Towers struck by aircraft at high speed and the results.

STRUCTURAL DAMAGE to the towers! also damage to the fire protection system on the steelwork which was the sprayed on system on the trusses and also the vermiculite used behind the cladding panels of the walls.
Fires cause weakened steel it doesn't have to melt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! then you have the NORMAL static load above the IMPACT points of a now compromised system.

The STATIC loads above the IMPACT point proved to be to much due to the structural damage and the reduced load capacity due to the now weakened steel.

The South Tower although hit 2nd fell first because the LOADS above the impact were far greater.

Now as the collapse started ANY of the falling mass which fell onto the floor slabs COULD ONLY BE RESISTED BY THE CONNECTIONS (ANGLE IRON/CLEATS) that held that floor slab in position, those connection were the same for floor 90 or floor 60 or floor 25 they were designed to resist a set loading plus a safety factor.

Now there are many variations on what is claimed for the mass of the concrete in the floors depending on the mix used worst case using information on the net is about the 800-900 ton so even if we made the total design load 1500 tons for EVERYTHING on the floor and as engineers are happy with a 3 times factor of safety that would mean it could support up to 4500 tons, that would be a load PLACED ON IT or a FALLING LOAD that would NOT repeat NOT generate more than 4500 tons as a DYNAMIC LOAD . The South Tower had 30 FLOORS above impact point the North Tower 15 FLOORS do you people seriously think they could resist the DYNAMIC LOADS that would produced.

THAT WAS WHY I ASK about a 10 KG load falling a WTC FLOOR height to show the VAST difference in loads/force generated by a static mass or a falling mass.

Now I should have worded my 10KG mass problem better but the problem on here is the vast difference of KNOWLEDGE , EDUCATION and EXPERIENCE members on here have and you have to allow for the LOWEST level.

Any mass that fell on the floors could ONLY BE RESISTED by the connections which were 25mm thick angle iron and 5/8 inch dia bolts we can see pictures of SHEARED BOLTS AND ANGLE IRON.



Pancaked floors did NOT START the collapse they were the result of the MASS falling from ABOVE the impact points.

Now as for the statement that all the concrete was turned to dust that is TOTAL AND UTTER BS!!!!

As it seems that many who comment about this event obviously have never been on a multi floor building (or any building it seems) DURING construction, have not looked or read any of the links to drawings / pictures /details of the actual construction of the towers or just don't use logic or COMMON SENSE to think about what could cause dust in this collapse and jumped to the FAILED CONCLUSION THAT ALL THE DUST IS CONCRETE.

What could cause dust in that vast DUST CLOUD here are just some of the items.

Thousands of sq mtrs of sheetrock/plasterboard (depending on what country you live in)
The sprayed on fire protection.
The vermiculite behind the aluminium cladding panels again thousands of sq mtrs.
Paint
Dust build up in uncleaned areas of the building over the years since construction.
Paper
Glass
The smoke from the fires and of course Concrete.

Now fires producing black smoke are starved of oxygen
just
again a clear case of following BS quotes and not trying to think for themselves.



Well that's not starved of oxygen, now let me know if I am wrong but I think I see black smoke


Here is another



So guess what the MATERIAL burning can dictate what the SMOKE COLOUR would be !!!!!
Now think of items in those buildings that if burned could produce BLACK smoke yes that's right try and think for yourself!

Now look at this image.



What do WE see BLACK SMOKE and FLAMES


Just to add another busy day will be back later.
edit on 21-6-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Now as the collapse started ANY of the falling mass which fell onto the floor slabs COULD ONLY BE RESISTED BY THE CONNECTIONS (ANGLE IRON/CLEATS) that held that floor slab in position, those connection were the same for floor 90 or floor 60 or floor 25 they were designed to resist a set loading plus a safety factor.
If that were the case, a hollow tower would be the result. However, the connections were strong enough to transfer the force to the core and perimeter columns and pull them down in the process as well.

Please rethink your argument.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon

Originally posted by -PLB-
Forces cause acceleration, like your source says, they do not accelerate themselves, like you wrote.
I don't even....


I agree that the irony is quite funny.


I have a new theory: since you can't explain the buildings' compressions physically, they must have come down because sophistry.


Sure I can explain it. Mass falls on floor. Floor fails. Mass plus failed floor falls on next floor. Floor fails etc. Its quite simple, I even showed you the concept with a real-life model. For unknown reasons you reject this explanation.

So when you point out someone is using a wrong term its on topic, when I point out you are using wrong terms its sophistry. Funny.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Akareyon
 


I really wonder where you got this idea from. Not long ago I explained to you that the columns either fell over or were pushed or buckled by a chaotic mass rushing down. You can see this happening in the videos.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Not long ago I explained to you
Look, the discussions we had are there for everyone to read (1, 2) and if you think repeating your arguments in yet another thread will somehow help, I have some bad news for you.

Your argument can be summed up as follows: domino effect/chain reaction.

My counterargument is still the same: domino effects/chain reactions result from careful planning, purpose, knowledge and intelligence. And even worse: a domino effect/chain reaction doesn't work if not everything is in the right place at the right time.

Consequently, the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 are the result of careful planning, purpose, knowledge and intelligence.

It may be doubted that haphazardly crashing one plane each at arbitrary spots into WTC 1 and 2 or the chaotic process of floor slabs, office furniture, core and perimeter columns burning, falling, buckling, shearing, exploding and imploding at the same time qualify as such.

So when you point out someone is using a wrong term its on topic
Have I given a correct solution to his problem or not?



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   

My counterargument is still the same: domino effects/chain reactions result from careful planning, purpose, knowledge and intelligence. And even worse: a domino effect/chain reaction doesn't work if not everything is in the right place at the right time.


Extremely simple to debunk. Avalanches, forrest fires, dam breaches, just to name a few in nature, don't require any planning or intelligence. I also showed you a bunch of buildings that collapsed unintentionally.


Consequently, the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 are the result of careful planning, purpose, knowledge and intelligence.


To come to this consequence you have to ignore all examples that prove otherwise. And flawed inductive reasoning: A has not happened before therefor A can not happen.
edit on 21-6-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join