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.

 

9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

page: 18
50
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 04:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kester
The average particle size indicates extraordinary demolition.


According to whom exactly?


The only serious calculation I've seen concludes it would theoretically take between one and two hundred years for a gravitational collapse to reduce the buildings to the size of particles evident.


Care to show us that "calculation"....




posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

The average particle size can be calculated from the physical evidence at Fresh Kills, the photographic and video evidence of the removal of debris from the WTC site, the destructive process, and the dust cloud. This can then be compared to other building collapses and demolitions.

From this it can be deduced there was an enormous input of energy many times over the energy released by gravitational collapse.

In short, the explosives concealed inside the reinforced concrete infill panels blew the towers to dust.

To be polite and answer your question.


According to whom exactly?

A quick search shows it's according to me.

I would be very interested to see how others account for the average particle size. The investigators sifting the debris were told to look for evidence in the debris. This is basic misdirection. Treating the debris itself as evidence soon leads to the conclusion a huge energy input has to be accounted for.


I'd love to show you that calculation but it was years ago that I saw it. Sometime during the 4,000 hours of study that led me to this conclusion. www.abovetopsecret.com...

The question is, how did the buildings become such small particles in such a short space of time? The central importance of that question is presumably what led to this little oversight.

13. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analyses of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?
Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.
In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy).
After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.
www.nist.gov...

They studied the impacts and fires but not the destructive process.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kester
In short, the explosives concealed inside the reinforced concrete infill panels blew the towers to dust.


That was the "hushaboom" explosives, the ones that have no sound, nor blast effect!


A quick search shows it's according to me.


Ah, that explains a lot!

4,000 hours? ROTFLMAO!



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   
With at least dozens of people reporting explosions, with the seismic record showing explosions, how can a person today expect to be taken seriously when claiming there were no explosions?



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

One would think that after what happened on 9/11 much of our students' science classes would study what actually occurred.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: cfnyaami

It is more important that younger generations be brainwashed than that they learn science or critical thinking. It is the American way.




posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander




how can a person today expect to be taken seriously when claiming there were no explosions?

Explosions do not always equal explosives. You know this.
The reports of explosions were random not a large number in a clear pattern.

I assume we all agree that all 110 floors were pulverized equally ?
Therefore we should have heard 'explosives' going off all the way down.
Not a peep.

Richard Gage claims beam were ejected horizontally 600 feet due to explosives.
Shouldn't we see a constant supply of beams ejected 600 feet from top to bottom?
Shouldn't these beams be ejected in all four directions, lest the building topple sideways?

Yet we saw no beams from the south tower striking the north tower.
Firemen in the north tower did not report debris impacts.
Arial photos do not show these beams 600 feet away in all four directions.

So which was it :
Silent thermite cutting the supports ?
or
A few random explosives magically pulverizing all 110 stories?

If you don't believe that the extreme level of pulverization was by gravity then you have to believe all the floors were wired.
The proof of cutting or explosives would have been all over the place.
It could not have been hidden from the clean up crews or the TV cameras.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Kester

BS
Want to tell me how YOU can compare AVERAGE particle size from a demolition to the Towers at 9/11.

NO buildings that height have been demolished, also when a building is demolished it is PREPARED for demolition ie many structural elements removed, internal walls, windows etc.

Tens of thousands of sq m of sheet rock, ceiling tiles, vermiculite insulation , paint & concrete floor slabs all in the Towers that's why you had so much dust and that's why the dust particle size was small.

The buildings did NOT become small particles that's just another BS statement YOUR side uses , much like claiming the Towers were brought down only by fire, all the dust was concrete or comparing any other building fires with the Towers even when other building fires are reinforced concrete structures and the yet steelwork in those still failed.

Low level Column Trees

Picture above column trees still stand, floor truss & cleats stripped so want to explain that



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   

edit on 28-3-2016 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join