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.

 

Mind Explaining These Things To Me?

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

In other words, you seem to feel that the structural strength of a building is related entirely to its mass. Is this correct?


Nice attempt to twist my words.

The force working upwards is bigger at the bottom of the tower. With each story you go up, this force decreases, because the downwards force (the mass) decreases too. Therefore, for a smaller part of the building, with a smaller downward force, to counter the bigger upward force, without slowing down, and while losing(!) downward force is impossible.

But you don't agree that the downward force is reduced so I'm not getting into this discussion...




posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And one more time, (just for the heck of it)

What they don’t show you in the “in plane site” video.

The exterior columns of WTC 2 bowing inward just prior to the collapse.


OMG - LMAO!


You just tried to criticize one of WCIP's arguments about the steel shredding by responding that all you could see was aluminum facades (even though that wasn't true).

And now, you do the exact thing you criticized someone else for - again!


Those pictures you post only show aluminum coverings bending. You've proven nothing until you show the actual columns, and even then, it would take a lot of buckled columns to collapse a whole goddamned WTC tower. What's more is that they apparently buckled so close to the same time, that the building began falling perfectly vertically.


Video footage of the collapse of WTC 2 showing the perfect symmetry (and the demolition explosions if you can accept them) from below.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I think you posted a link to the wrong clip, because that few seconds already into the collapse didn't seem to show, err, anything useful really, but in spite of this I feel really guilty. We are all so wrong you know. I think we should stand back and allow you to take up what is your obvious profession as a master architect, I don't understand why someone with your skills is being wasted on the internet when with your knowledge you could be designing buildings that are so safe none of this will ever happen again.

I truly believe that the world is a worse place without you out there designing and building for a brighter future.





[edit on 26-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Edit: Just kidding. I got me threads mixed up.


Either way, we could do without the sarcasm.


[edit on 26-8-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Why do I care how many points you have? here have some more..



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   

And thanks DaTerminator for backing me up, that north tower video shows exactly the movement of the camera before the tower collapses.
Or do you mean that was from the first tower falling ? Mere seconds before the second one ? I don't need to paste the timeline do I ?


Oh my god!
This has gone way too far. Have you every used a video camera? Apparently not. The lens and camera are very senstive to movement. Even when mounted on a tripod, a rush of wind will cause the picture to vibrate a little. That is NOT EVIDENCE for conspiracy. I can easily replicate that. Also, the vibration occurs way before the actual collapse.


You saw the towers burn. Therefore, Bush is not lying. Is that right ?

Nice logic dude: Did you see Kenny gettin shot too ?

Do you really believe they a lone Oswald did it ?

Come man, you SAW that too !!


Go watch: 9/11 In Plane Site - The Director's Cut

You will soon sooon soooon become a true trueee belieeever.


I'm afriad you are the one with the flawed logic. Films and tv shows, espescially conspiracy oriented ones, have been known to tweak evidence and ignore conflicting facts. This is like saying that you believe every word of farienhiet 9/11, which is actually more believable then "bush carried out the attacks." When a show has a subjective standpoint and an agenda to disprove/prove something instead of an objective, balanced investigation it can't be trusted as the full truth.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTerminator

Oh my god!
This has gone way too far. Have you every used a video camera? Apparently not. The lens and camera are very senstive to movement. Even when mounted on a tripod, a rush of wind will cause the picture to vibrate a little. That is NOT EVIDENCE for conspiracy. I can easily replicate that. Also, the vibration occurs way before the actual collapse.


Yeah it was earlier because that was the eplosion that apparantly happend in the basement. And it could be someone hitting the camera, altho the vibration appears to be too long for that.
And also notice that with the vibration, a piece of debris is knocked off the side of the building.

Could be coincidence.. yet another one.

I'm not ruling out an explosion at all just because you call it a gust of wind though.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I think you posted a link to the wrong clip, because that few seconds already into the collapse didn't seem to show, err, anything useful really


It showed exactly what I said it would: the perfect symmetry of the collapse.

You guys like to downplay that by claiming that the tower started its collapse while slightly tilted (even while ignoring the mysterious disappearance of this tilt).

Well, as you can see on that video, the collapse was in fact almost completely perfect in its symmetry. Something very unusual for any collapse, of course (save demolition), and I'm sure if I asked certain people to reproduce that aspect of the collapse, they wouldn't stop crying about how impossible it is for months.

If you look closely, you can see squib-like explosions coming out in rows, row after row, coinciding precisely with each other, on the building's way down. When you compare one of these explosions coming from these rows with a squib, you'll see an eerie similarity as well. Take a close look at it. Pause it a few times and look at the explosions that are coming out row-by-row in this perfectly vertical, near free-falll destruction.

If you don't think it shows much of interest, then maybe you should brush up on your basic physics or something and put some critical thinking skills to work as you watch it.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by DaTerminator

Oh my god!
This has gone way too far. Have you every used a video camera? Apparently not. The lens and camera are very senstive to movement. Even when mounted on a tripod, a rush of wind will cause the picture to vibrate a little. That is NOT EVIDENCE for conspiracy. I can easily replicate that. Also, the vibration occurs way before the actual collapse.


Yeah it was earlier because that was the eplosion that apparantly happend in the basement. And it could be someone hitting the camera, altho the vibration appears to be too long for that.
And also notice that with the vibration, a piece of debris is knocked off the side of the building.

Could be coincidence.. yet another one.

I'm not ruling out an explosion at all just because you call it a gust of wind though.



Look, if it is possible and likely that the wind caused the picture to skew then why is it neccessary to claim that the "vibration" in the camera was do to some sort of underground explosion? That is illogical. I'm telling you, I work with cameras all of the time. I am an amateur filmmaker. The slightest gust of wind will cause the picture to skew if the camera is not balanced correctly.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTerminator

Originally posted by Shroomery

Originally posted by DaTerminator

Oh my god!
This has gone way too far. Have you every used a video camera? Apparently not. The lens and camera are very senstive to movement. Even when mounted on a tripod, a rush of wind will cause the picture to vibrate a little. That is NOT EVIDENCE for conspiracy. I can easily replicate that. Also, the vibration occurs way before the actual collapse.


Yeah it was earlier because that was the eplosion that apparantly happend in the basement. And it could be someone hitting the camera, altho the vibration appears to be too long for that.
And also notice that with the vibration, a piece of debris is knocked off the side of the building.

Could be coincidence.. yet another one.

I'm not ruling out an explosion at all just because you call it a gust of wind though.



Look, if it is possible and likely that the wind caused the picture to skew then why is it neccessary to claim that the "vibration" in the camera was do to some sort of underground explosion? That is illogical. I'm telling you, I work with cameras all of the time. I am an amateur filmmaker. The slightest gust of wind will cause the picture to skew if the camera is not balanced correctly.



See this is exactly the reason why you can't argue with someone like you.
Just because you're an amateur filmmaker doesn't mean you know what caused that shaking.
The falling debris shows it could very well be an explosion, however nothing points to wind, yet you're sure it is.

Just because you cry out harder about your amateur films doesn't make you more of an expert, you have no clue what I do.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   

See this is exactly the reason why you can't argue with someone like you.
Just because you're an amateur filmmaker doesn't mean you know what caused that shaking.
The falling debris shows it could very well be an explosion, however nothing points to wind, yet you're sure it is.

Just because you cry out harder about your amateur films doesn't make you more of an expert, you have no clue what I do.


Damn not again. The reason why you can't argue with me is because you have nothing to argue for. The shaking of the camera is in no way evidence for any government cover-up. The only thing that camera shake provides evidence for is that the camera shook. Thats all. It doesn't provide evidence for anything other than itself. You can't use that to prove your point. Take any other peice of footage and you'll get that same effect if wind hits an unstable camera and it has nothing to do with an explosion. So, if it is possible that the wind was at fault, and there is no other visual evidence to suggest an explosion, then there is no need to claim that an explosion caused the camera to jerk. Occam's razor people.


[edit on 26-8-2005 by DaTerminator]



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   
There, you said it yourself, IF there's no other evidence.
Wich makes my explosion theory more acceptable then yours.

- Vibration looks too long to be wind related, in fact, the camera shows to be of such decent quality that you can expect a heavier model, therefor winds seems less reasonable, also the camera seems to be fitted, could be a tripod, wich would be another sign that wind is less likely to cause this vibration.
- There's debris knocked off the buildig, pointing to a movement/vibration at the tower.

But I said it could be either, you should've left it at that instead of acting that you were sure it was wind purely based on your filming skills and assumptions.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
here's more 'evidence' of the collapse :




The observed near free-fall times of the WTC towers (and WTC7) were a dramatic signature of a controlled demolition. (The articles at members.fortunecity.com... are a valuable resource for presenting and then challenging the "official" explanation for WTC collapses). Measured times are all around 10 seconds, which is close to calculated free-fall time, indicating the tower floors fell without much impediment. They essentially fell into air [Ref. (6)]. The theory put forth by T. Eagar of MIT and other "establishment" engineers is that while no steel members actually melted or failed, the floor assemblies, bolted at their joists to the outer walls and inner core structures, did fail [Ref. (7)]. The floor joists attachment bolts were weakened and gave way, twisting sideways and allowing the initial floor to "unzipper" itself all the way round and collapse to the floor below. The remaining floors then pancaked all the way down. Never mind that floor joist cross-members, placed to resist twisting, and additional support structures were not included in the MIT/FEMA/NOVA calculations and presentations (nor was the inner core collapse mechanism explained at all).

Consider the following: if the pancaking effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no video of either of the WTC collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses, which should have been very apparent especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse was small? Consider also that apologists for the official conspiracy theory propose that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the pyroclastic cloud of debris: that is, in their own analysis, this energy came out of the gravitational energy. This means that the time of fall would have been slowed further than what was observed. When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to pulverize concrete essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g.

Substituting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g' x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g' = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g' = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g' will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t', then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g' x (t' exp2) =
(1/2) x 0.7g x (t' exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t' exp2), or (t/t') = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t' = 1.195 t.

Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.

The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational involved in the WTC towers collapses. Certainly that is the conclusion of J. Hoffman in his thorough discussion of the north WTC tower dust cloud [Ref. (8)]. By calculating the major sources and sinks observed, particularly the sink of the pyroclastic cloud expansion, Hoffman establishes that a large amount of energy had to be available to drive that expansion, in a (minimum) range of 2,706,000 kWh to 11,724,000 kWh (see his Summary table). Hoffman does not propose an energy source to balance that sink. In Appendix B, an estimate, for discussion purposes only, of the amount of thermite-equivalent to provide this energy source is discussed. It is large, but physically possible.


You obviously wanted big words. There you have them.
Especially notice the part in bold



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Shroomie,

Have you read these also?

wtc.nist.gov...

wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
no Howie your links don't work.
But I hope you realize that the NIST report was based on data coming from FEMA ... so if they left out vital parts of the tower, NIST surely has too.


Oh wait I have that one on my HD, anything specific I should look at ?

[edit on 27-8-2005 by Shroomery]



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
They work fine, they just take a long time to load as they are very big.
Best method:

Right Click 'Save As'.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
Oh wait I have that one on my HD, anything specific I should look at ?



I havn't had the pleasure of reading it yet, but I imagine the whole thing would be useful, seeing as it contains all the data on the building and why it collapsed.
Unfortunately I do believe it explains why it collapsed due to the impacts and heat, so I do understand if you would rather not.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

- Vibration looks too long to be wind related, in fact, the camera shows to be of such decent quality that you can expect a heavier model, therefor winds seems less reasonable, also the camera seems to be fitted, could be a tripod, wich would be another sign that wind is less likely to cause this vibration.
- There's debris knocked off the buildig, pointing to a movement/vibration at the tower.


The vibration occurs for about 2 seconds. How is that too long to be wind? How do you know that it wasn't the videographer trampering with the camera settings? I saw one peice of debri fall down the side of the building about a second after the vibration stopped. Is this your evidene for an explosion? There is simply not enough to point to the vibration being the result of an explosion, therefore you can't say that the "vibration" is evidence at all for anything other than itself. If you can find other footage showing vibration at approximately the same time then I will take your claim into consideration, until then your arguement is dead.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
It's funny though that all these "official" reports contradict Kevin Ryan's story where he says that head of fema(!) found out that the temperatures reached at the wtc would not have been higher then 250°C.

This important piece of evidence gained from the metallurgic analysis was then ignored by both the fema and the nist report.

Yet that is all they base their conclusions on.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
It's funny though that all these "official" reports contradict Kevin Ryan's story where he says that head of fema(!) found out that the temperatures reached at the wtc would not have been higher then 250°C.

This important piece of evidence gained from the metallurgic analysis was then ignored by both the fema and the nist report.

Yet that is all they base their conclusions on.


You are joking arn't you? Even if some retard actually said that, anyone with half a brain must know it's wrong? Your saying that the heat of the fire in the WTC was 1.5 times the temperature of boiling water? Give it a break.

In this article they even say the flame of a bunsen burner is about 2000 deg C and almost all air-fuel mixtures are 1800 - 2100C.

listserv.repp.org...

Geez, here the peak temperature in a candle is 1400 deg C


A laminar diffusion flame is a candle. The fuel comes from the wax vapor, while the oxidizer is air; they do not mix before being introduced (by diffusion) into the flame zone. A peak temperature of around 1400°C is found in a candle flame [3].

www.doctorfire.com...

250 degrees, that's ridiculous.


The melting point of steel as we all know:

Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).
education.jlab.org...


Again, a candle:


A peak temperature of around 1400°C is found in a candle flame [3].



Your saying this:


is over 5x hotter than this:



Says it all I think...........


[edit on 27-8-2005 by AgentSmith]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join