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.
Name ONE Ph.D that was at ground zero during the clean up and has verified thermite. Wait, there isnt any. You have ONE phd that studied a piece of metal that supposedly came from Ground Zero and he found chemical residues that include those you might find from thermite...of course you would also find the same materials in a normal high rise building (aluminum oxide, manganese etc...).
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I am not entirely sure just who started the "black smoke means an oxygen starved fire" baloney, but it is just that, baloney.
Nice thread, you've succeded in drawing out the "it's just the way we were told crowd" right off the bat! Swampy and Cappy will no dought keep you very busy. Their arguments are somewhat sound and they will have list of experts and evidence to back it up, but I still feel there is something terribly wrong with 911 and the justification of subsequent wars on the other side of the world.
every Ph.D agrees with that, yet the building came down to the ground at a 90° angle. im not worried about freefall speed here. im not worried about lateral ejections. im talking about the bulk of the building came down perpendicular to the ground. that means there was as little resistance from the impact zone to the ground as there was in free air surrounding the tower.
Really? Do you hold allodial title to your car or your house? Do you have a reprasentative government, i.e., do you hold as much clout in Washington D.C. as Wal-mart or exxon? You have heard of something called the Patriot Act, right?...
"But if conspiracies exist, they rarely move history; they make a difference at the margins from time to time, but with the unforeseen consequences of a logic outside the control of their authors: and this is what is wrong with 'conspiracy theory.' ...
Thanks for that.. I haven't had a good laugh like that in a while. Either this guy is really dumb, or I need to send a 419 advance fee letter fast. He's the easiest mark I've ever seen.
Your demonstration is nice, but it fails to prove anything. At what point will construction-grade steel, designed to withstand much higher temperatures for a sustained period of time, completely fail within the engineering construction of the WTC Towers? We already know that jet-fuel is capable of weakening steel at 1400 degrees. Your calculations are flawed, anyhow, for they presuppose perfect conditions, i.e., a perfect burn.
Two 110 story steel structures engineered (study the engineering specs) to withstand two consecutive...
Exactamundo! Ay there's the rub, isn't it? All you have to do is use the two eyes that God gave you and your brain.. A so-called "pancake" collapse isn't going to look anything remotely like this. And please explain to the gallery how such catastophic failure could have occurred at nearly the exact same time, through the entire structure of a 110 story concrete reinforced steel skyscraper, built to withstand fires, hurricane force winds, and plane impacts, and has a huge steel core in the center of it, all made of construction-grade steel?
Im not an pgd but im an eet and we learned in physics class that newtons laws state that a falling body will take the path of least resistance. every Ph.D agrees with that, yet the building came down to the ground at a 90° angle. im not worried about freefall speed here. im not worried about lateral ejections. im talking about the bulk of the building came down perpendicular to the ground. that means there was as little resistance from the impact zone to the ground as there was in free air surrounding the tower.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I am not entirely sure just who started the "black smoke means an oxygen starved fire" baloney, but it is just that, baloney.
originally posted by HothSnake1
Nah, they rely totally on government sources, which is their weakness. I have combed through the dubunkers movement arguments and have found them rife with circular reasoning based on preconcieved notions, while ignoring much of the smoking-gun evidence. They rely, almost exclusively, on the weaker parts of the 9-11 truth movement (insider trading and Ashcroft flight warnings, etc). Most of what I have read has been opinionated banter with no backing.
Originally posted by Boone 870
Can debunkers use any of the following as a source?
Originally posted by jprophet420
Why would the building move to one side on the way down, what force would push it to a side?
A. the resistance from the building underneath.
The portion of the building underneath could ONLY provide a normal force (aka a vertical force). This normal force was overcome by gravity, and the building fell straight down, as it should have.
It could not be overcome by gravity alone, or all buildings would fall.
so unless there was NO resistance from underneath the building would fall to the side.
ill give you that the building could have failed at the point of impact due to impact+fire. however i will not concede that this caused global failure from the basement up. That is what happened according to the laws of physics. that does not coincide with the official story.
Originally posted by teebigins
You still haven't explained where this force that pushes a several thousand ton building to one side comes from.
The building failed at point of impact first right? we can agree with that.
So now the normal force at point of impact(POI) is smaller then the weight of the building the above POI, so the top portion slams into the bottom portion,
But as the building is falling velocity is increasing,
and we know momentum = velocity * mass. SO it cuases a global failure as the momentum of this massive object is so huge.
Why don't you explain where it came from? The floors weren't laying in stacks at the bottom floors when it was all said and done...
And the force that "pushes" it to one side is gravity, and it would be a "pull". The weakest part of the structure is where it would lean first because the electromagnetic resisting forces there would be weakest, and smallest in proportion to gravity (which is constant). Do you really know what you're talking about?
The building failed at point of impact first right? we can agree with that.
So now the normal force at point of impact(POI) is smaller then the weight of the building the above POI, so the top portion slams into the bottom portion,
Wrong! Nothing "slams" as a single unit, and if anything, it would be the floors, not the entire mass of everything above! What failure mechanism are you describing, exactly? It sounds exactly like a tree shredding itself downwards to me, if you have columns landing on top of columns and all and smashing it all straight down. How are the columns coming lose and then dropping down onto themselves? Think about it, Mr. Engineer. I thought the idea was pancake collapse? NIST has dropped the pancake theory by now, btw, if that's any help.
But as the building is falling velocity is increasing,
Originally posted by thedman
As steel is heated it begins to soften, At 1000 F it loses 10% of rated
strenght, at 1200 F 25%, 1400 F 50%, 1800 F only 10%. The steel
expands as it is heated, at 1000 F it expands 9 1/2 inches per 100
linear feet.
The expanding steel begine to twist, bend and sag under the
stress.
At some critical point the steel will have reached a point where
it can not support the load and fail. The load is transferred to adjacent
parts of the structure which if under heat stress will fail in a cascading
manner.
Witness the violent failure of the exterior columns which
initialed the building collapse