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.

 

Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

page: 22
24
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Bottom line here is that the reader isn't an idiot and has watched the video of the North Tower exploding, and have also noted the time difference between free fall and the destruction itself as well as the fact that there was no loss of momentum or in other words that the debris wave kept exploding all the way down the remaining structure (at near free fall speed - to within seconds) even when there was rather significantly less building above. Steel core within in a steel perimeter as a "tube in tube" makes no difference, that's just another attempt at deception to try to defend, uphold and guard the official story, which cannot be accepted or believed in light of the laws of physics, like the first and third laws of motion and conservation of momentum.

It's self evident.



All truth passes through three stages.

First, it is ridiculed.

Second, it is violently opposed.

Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.


edit on 8-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


We possibly have another misunderstanding then. As long as you aren't
saying the columns were tubular in design and detail. Because I know
damn well their not.

And your nose has no business in this part of the discussion Zaph.
So don't try. You'll just get spanked again.

edit on 8-12-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Please tell us what you think the columns were like ?

Also if you are WRONG it's nice to say sorry to the other person!!!!



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Really? I got spanked? When did this happen?



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

NewAgeMan
Bottom line here is that the reader isn't an idiot and has watched the video of the North Tower exploding, and have also noted the time difference between free fall and the destruction itself as well as the fact that there was no loss of momentum or in other words that the debris wave kept exploding all the way down the remaining structure (at near free fall speed) even when there was rather significantly less building above. Steel core within in a steel perimeter as a "tube in tube" makes no difference, that's just another attempt at deception to try to defend, uphold and guard the official story, which cannot be accepted or believed in light of the laws of physics, like the first and third laws and conservation of momentum.

It's self evident.



All truth passes through three stages.

First, it is ridiculed.

Second, it is violently opposed.

Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.



Want to explain how debris of the outside wall falls quicker than the core!

The towers behaved as they should, want to explain how an avalanche works!!! ????



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


What do you mean wrong ! Nothing wrong in what I'm saying.
You're the one who was trying to pass off some ultimate design
reference as the design and detail of the vertical columns.
Where's my apology ?

Zaph

Getting spanked is what always happens when you
don't know what you're talking about.
edit on 8-12-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


What do you mean wrong ! Nothing wrong in what I'm saying.
You're the one who was trying to pass off some ultimate design
reference as the design and detail of the vertical columns.
Where's my apology ?


I will quote you you claimed tube in tube was not a term used in construction.

Please refer to the bold letters below I linked to documents to show it is USED!!!!!


randyvs

That's quite simply a reference not used in the field and has
nothing to do with any of risers or columns being tubular pal
that's just silly if you think it does. No tubes.lol

It even says this in your link or one of the many I've looked
at " That the gravity load is shared by the core columns."



So now do you see!



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


It's not used in the field because there is no use for it there.
You're the one who brought it up. And it has no bearing on the
gravity load of the core COLUMNS not tubes. As you tried to suggest.
edit on 8-12-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


It's not used in the field because there is no use for it there.
You're the one who brought it up. And it has no bearing on the
gravity load of the core COLUMNS not tubes. As you tried toi suggest.


Provide a link a post where I made that claim?



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I'm still trying to figure out where I got spanked. But if you want to say you did, you go right ahead.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
The reader is too intelligent and observant to fall for this nonsense, it doesn't matter what description is used to describe the construction of a steel core within a steel perimeter. It makes no difference to the dynamics involved. People can see when someone is trying to deceive them by attempting to evoke in their mind's eye an image that the buildings were "flimsy" and they don't fall for it for a moment.

This issue is also too important to allow it to be trivialized by such a "debate", which is nothing but a distraction or attempted distraction. I don't recommend getting drawn into it Randy and letting the thread trial off into a trivial argument as to how the construction of the building might be described. Everyone knows the building had a core columnar structure surrounded by a steel perimeter curtain wall.

When the debunker starts talking about "tube in tube" you know they're really desperate, and here it's all about trying to score a point over a mere description it's not worth it, to be so distracted from the obvious.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Just keep replying where you have no experience and it'll happen again



WMD


It was a tube in tube design, floors could fall internally due to this design and they did !!!!

edit on 8-12-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Ok. If you say so. I still don't remember the first time, but whatever.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I get excited Zaph so pardon my passion. But you won't catch
me going up against you in anything about aviation cause I
damn well know better. K?

You do have my respect.
edit on 8-12-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by randyvs
 


Ok. If you say so. I still don't remember the first time, but whatever.


I wouldn't use that terminology (spanked), because I have no interest in abuse or for that matter an abuse of power which is what 9/11 is all about, but just for the record Zaphod, HERE is where it happened, based on everything that we'd been discussing up until that point. No one ever remembers such things in hindsight however, because they usually took place during infancy (sorry, I couldn't resist).



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


So you're sticking with the "It's impossible for a plane to dive down, go past it's operating limit speeds, and not fall apart" then huh. Ok, if you say so.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


The term is the only thing that came to mind. So I suppose
I could of added, for lack of a better term.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Since you guys (hereinafter referred to as "the debunkers" or OS supporters might be a better description, because if you were truly skeptical you would also question the official story) have returned to the thread, let it spurn us onward to take a look at additional evidence, including the presence of super high temperatures by far exceeding anything that would be possible in a jet fuel and office fire, for one, and the 9/11 War Games Operations, for two, and that PASSPORT in asking the question - how did it get THERE?, for three.

Looking at the construction of the building from the ground up, including the way in which the core structure was built, and how all the bolts and welds fit together would be on topic, and be of interest, in light of the fact that we're only left with a timeframe of about four seconds for all of them to break, which, given the height of the towers, and the length of structure beneath the impact area, in the case of the North Tower about 93 or more floors worth, would require a transfer of energy exceeding the speed of sound, while also ignoring all forces of resistance according to the third law of motion which states, well, we already know no need to repeat it, again.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

leostokes

wmd_2008
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


YOU don't understand the LOADS that the structure was under at the time or the DYNAMIC LOAD imposed on the lower structure as it fell I will give you an example which may help.

Lets look at a 10kg object falling the the height of a WTC floor approx 4mts

Use this link Impact Calculator

Impact energy just before it touches the floor below 392J of energy.

The next part is the hardest as the structure below DIDN'T/COULDN'T resit the load lets work it out if it just manage to.

The floor trusses were supported on cleats (angle iron) welded at the core side to a channel welded to the core columns and also to the wall columns.

Truss image below
911review.org...

There are images showing cleats sheared off so the weld failed and some of the top part of the cleat sheared off.

This cleat was about 1" (25.4mm) thick lest say that stops our dropping load just at the point it's about to shear so 25.4mm or 0.0254 mtr put that in the calculator above.


That gives a figure of 15433 n now dived that by 9.81 to convert to kg and that is 1573kg or 1.5 tons of impact energy.

The floors FAILED as the falling load hit them so that's why I made the assumption if they did stop they didn't so whats your take on that.

This is just to illustrate the HUGE loads generated in such a situation we can NEVER know the exact details of the impact events we can only see the result.

In fact here is a link to calculations of force on a driver in a crash.

Force on driver in a car crash

DON'T drive to close eh!!!


YOU don't understand the LOADS that the structure was under at the time or the DYNAMIC LOAD imposed on the lower structure as it fell I will give you an example which may help.


The floors FAILED as the falling load hit them



This is just to illustrate the HUGE loads generated

You have ignored my question twice now in this thread. Here is the third version. What kind of seismic reading would you expect when this huge load hits the ground?


Have any of you posters ever watched a video by Judy Wood?


The potential energy in one wtc tower "collapse" would be 30 times that of the Seattle Kingdome. If WTC were a controlled demolition. Therefore the seismic event would be like an earthquake 30 times that of the Kingdome.

The Kingdome registered 2.3.

In all the WTC "collapses" the largest seismic reading was 2.3. And none were earthquake-like effects produced in controled demolition collapses. The waves were only surface waves.

The surface wave of building 7 registered 0.6.

What could explain the lack of seismic evidence for the destruction at the WTC? The buildings turned to dust before they hit the ground.
edit on 8-12-2013 by leostokes because: clarity?



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   

leostokes
If it were a controlled demolition.


As it was not a controlled demolition, your claim is just silly.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


So you're sticking with the "It's impossible for a plane to dive down, go past it's operating limit speeds, and not fall apart" then huh. Ok, if you say so.


Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


So you're sticking with the "It's impossible for a plane to dive down, go past it's operating limit speeds, and not fall apart" then huh. Ok, if you say so.


You've said it twice now, so I'll just leave that accidental double-post.

No it's not just that question, (you're so sneaky), which demonstrates just how far or by how many orders of magnitude the observed performance of the south tower plane exceeded that of an UN-modified Boenig 767 commercial airliner, given the speed and altitude (where such a thing ie: break up, would be not only possible but a likely scenario), but one also, if the plane could hold together, of piloting and control at that speed (575-600mph), and altitude (700 feet - @ sea level basically). Furthermore, it was retaining that speed at level altitude, without slowing down in any way.

Why do I feel like I'm dealing not with your own incredulity, because you are after all a pilot, but that which you are attempting to introduce, falsely and with a certain deception, into the mind of the reader in simply trying to create or generate a false impression as to the actual circumstance involved, or maybe it's just that you believe in absolute terms, the OS, and that's understandable, to a degree, but not to the degree that you are a thinking and rational person well acquainted with all the various issues involved.



edit on 8-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join