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.

 

Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

page: 14
3
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
As to why I debate it so much, has more to do with me enjoying a good debate than it has to do with bias. I have taken a position, and until I see some actual hard evidence, I will stick with it and enjoy every post fighting in the trenches.


Question: If you want "hard evidence" before you'll believe it, why are you so quick to believe anything regarding 9/11? Everything offering definitive proof either way (blueprints, etc.) is under the lock and key of the feds.

...and why do you believe the squibs were air, when a basic property of air is to expand in all directions to equalize and not jet across floors in a single stream capable of destroying concrete and other materials?

...and why do you cite a totally irrelevant Eager interview when faced with the angular momentum problem?

...and since when have the top floors of buildings had unlimited supplies of kinetic energy, once they begin to fall?

I know you'll try to justify these, and of course satisfy yourself, but just some thoughts for everyone else.




posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Can we get back to debating the topic? The topics of LeftBehind's freedom from bias and his claims of championing the "government allowed it to happen" cause, are not only complete fiction, they are also irrelevant, and last but not least extremely dull.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   
So how many of the Professor's points have been addressed in this topic thus far?

Has this one been addressed yet?:



Top ~ 34 floors of South Tower topple over.

What happens to the block and its angular momentum?

We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)


I don't believe it has.

The Professor fails to mention another important observation here, understandable considering the number of problems to be addressed: the enormous amount of angular momentum completely vanished well before the cap was destroyed.

This is an extremely telling, and very basic violation of physics, if the official story is to be taken seriously. This is a basic violation, the lack of retardation in the collapse speeds is a serious and basic violation, and the squibs are a clear physics violation of the official story. This is the triumvirate of bad physics, if you will, that the official story necessarily assumes to make its case work. They seem to me the most basic and apparent flaws. So let's look more closely at this trio of ignorant assumptions.

The First Obvious Physics Problem: Disappearance of Angular Momentum.

First I'll explain the problem, then I'll address a response I expect to receive and show why it's irrelevant before it's even posted.

Upon the initiation of collapse, the towers both exhibited angular momentum in their caps, as seen in the above pic. By this point in the collapse, there has been no vertical collapse. The only movement has been outwards - as the cap was tilting outwards. The tilting lasted for about 2.5 seconds, meaning there was about 2.5 seconds of angular momentum alone. Massive momentum, because that cap was massive. A lot of weight.


So here's the problem: the momentum then disappeared. We all know the cap didn't just fall off the top, as the whole building collapsed from top to bottom into a pile of dust and shards of steel. So where did the momentum go?

Physics provides two possible scenarios for the loss of momentum here:

A) There was an unbalancing force, as per Newton's First Law of Motion. In this case it would necessarily be equal and opposite, as the momentum was totally compromised. No more tilt after 2.5 seconds.

B) The fulcrum was destroyed, thus taking away the pivot from which the cap was tilting.

B is what happened. This is verifiable in several ways: firstly, there was nothing to counter the massive amount of angular momentum, ie, no Superman, and secondly, at the same moment the angular momentum was lost, the vertical collapse began.

And once the vertical collapse began, we all know how symmetrical the rest of the collapse was. In both towers.



So now we have a serious issue to consider here, and it's this:

What destroyed the fulcrum of the angular momentum?

Keep in mind it could not have been the weight of the cap, because as long as the cap was touching the frame of the lower building, as long as there was contact, there would be a pivot. And as long as there was a pivot, the massive amount of momentum would continue. Therefore the cap was destroyed by a force separating the cap and lower building: a 3rd source of energy. Again, this is necessarily true because the cap could not crush the lower building without maintaing a pivot for momentum.

With demolition, the 3rd source of energy would be an explosive that severed the contact between the caps and lower floors.

With the official story, the subject is skipped completely by NIST, FEMA, and everyone else with or backing the official line.

The typical response I've seen to this (the only response, really) from the official story side is an excerpt of an interview where someone (maybe Thomas Eager - not sure) states that there was no way the caps could've fallen off the side in their entirety. Simple problem: total irrelevance to the problem of the momentum disappearing before the vertical collapse initiated.


The Second Obvious Physics Problem: Squibs

The squibs were the explosions clearly visible during the collapses. The most conspicuous stuck out by themselves. Under the demo theory, these explosions are cited as evidence of explosives placed within the buildings near the perimeter columns. Solid debris is ejected from the squibs, and with great force, and before the collapsing region of the building in question has reached the area of the building from which the squib has appeared.



These are explained as the same charges that destroyed the perimeter columns in a rapid, symmetrical fashion. The reason some explosions stuck out is because, in demolition, it is common for charges to initiate prematurely. Video clips taken from below the collapses, such as this one, show numerous squibs coming out in perfectly symmetrical rows, floor by floor. With other videos, that were not at ground level, free-falling material obscured view of these explosions.

NIST, FEMA, and all other agencies, officials, organizations, etc. representing the government have totally neglected this explosions. They are not mentioned. Out of sight, out of mind, I suppose. But since those that follow the official story here on ATS are confronted directly with the explosions, an exlpanation has somehow come about that is totally scientifically unfounded and yet simultaneously the best explanation compliant with the official story that they have to offer.

And before anyone pushes the load of b.s. of "they were AIR!" in response to this post, let's look at how air does and does not behave.

First of all, here's an image from WCIP showing the paths the air would've had to have taken:



Now.. Wikipedia on Air Pressure (emphasis mine):


Atmospheric pressure is the pressure above any area in the Earth's atmosphere caused by the weight of air. …

Air masses are affected by the general atmospheric pressure within the mass, creating areas of high pressure (anti-cyclones) and low pressure (depressions).


Did you guys get that?

"Air masses are affected by the general atmospheric pressure"! Who would have ever thought?

Areas of high pressure (denser air, or in our case often refered to as "compressed") and areas of low pressure (less dense air, or the non-"compressed" air) interact. They do not remain constant around one another, or move through each other without interacting. To assume this is insanely unscientific. If air behaved as such, wind would not exist, and neither would weather, except maybe in some kind of freaky bizarro way (ie physically wrong).

But wait! How exactly do these areas of denser air and less dense air interact?

Wikipedia on Pressure Gradient Force:


The pressure gradient force is the force that is usually responsible for accelerating a parcel of air from a high atmospheric pressure region to a low pressure region, resulting in wind.


Ohhh! So now we have common sense! High pressure, or denser air, moves towards low pressure, or less dense air. And what's more, no one specific direction is mentioned. Good Lord! What a revelation. But the article goes on:


The pressure gradient force acts at right angles to isobars in the direction from high to low pressure. The greater the pressure difference over a given horizontal distance, the greater the force and hence the stronger the wind.


In other words, the bigger the difference between two different densities of air, the more forcefully they move "from a high atmospheric pressure region to a low pressure region." Or, put simply, the more forcefully the high-pressure air and low-pressure air mingle upon meeting.

Now, this does not mean that air would have come down the shafts and busted out through steel perimeter columns to reach less dense air. The so-called "compressed air" (that didn't even exist but I'll get to that lastly) would have equalized with the immediate low-pressure air. That means the air all over the floor on which it would've just arrived.


The pressure gradient force, however, is not the only force that acts on a moving parcel of air — if it were, then low and high pressure regions would eventually disappear. Other forces acting on a moving parcel of air include friction and/or the Coriolis force.


So the other possibilites for moving the air are something being in the way to redirect it (friction) or the Coriolis Force, which is so ridiculously irrelevant that I'll let you look it up on your own if you don't already know what it is.

Does anyone know of any air shafts running down the floors, outwards from the core structures and right up to a perimeter wall? No? Well then I guess friction is out of the question, too.

So if it was air, we're left with one possible conclusion: Magic!



Just as ridiculous as the holographic plane b.s., is the b.s. that some variation of the above diagram caused this:



Additional problems with air:

1) Solid debris was ejected from the squibs in the form of concrete and other dust. Some suggest this dust was from the impacted regions. Since the most obvious squibs preceeded the rest of the collapse (the squibs that some alleged are air), this would mean that the air would've had to have carried the concrete dust, etc. down the building from the impact zone faster than the collapse itself. One observed squib was about 50 floors down from the collapse zone. This particular squib would require air to move down the building between 2 and 3 times the speed of the actual collapse. This would not be possible here, as there was nothing additional to propel to air. But, really there was nothing to propel the air at all, as...

2) The collapsing towers were being destroyed as they collapsed, both laterally and vertically. They were not airtight in the least. There was nothing to prevent air from escaping the buildings during their collapses, effectively preventing any great pressure from building in the first place.


The Third Obvious Physics Problem: No Retardation

This one's rather simple: as the buildings collapsed, there seemed to be no slowing of the rate of collapse. This doesn't make sense because there was a fixed amount of potential energy within the caps while they were resting. When they began to move, they similarly had a fixed amount of kinetic energy, and thereby a fixed amount of momentum. As the caps crushed each floor, floor after floor after floor after floor, this energy should've quickly become depleted for several reasons.

First of all, massive amounts of energy would be required to crush each floor. Again, these caps had a fixed amount of energy to work with.

Secondly, the weight of the caps diminished very quickly to about nothing, as the caps themselves diminished into nothing but dust and shards of steel, effectively removing the alleged driving force from the collapses entirely.

Thirdly, the collapse, upon the destruction of each floor, was descending upon floors with thicker and thicker columns, meaning more and more resistance, meaning the necessity of spending more and more energy on each floor to destroy it.

Yet in spite of all of this, there was no change in speed as the collapse progressed from top to bottom. This is obviously evidence of an additional source of energy within the towers, bringing them down. With demolition, the floors would easily come down at a steady speed, according to the steady initiation of charges all the way down.

So, there you have three major problems with the official story, involving basic physics. And all three of these problems with the official story, also lend major support to the demolition theory, not by negating the official story, but by offering direct physical evidence of the existance of additional sources of energy from within the WTC Towers.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Bsbray for such basic physics you seem to have trouble coming up with basic numbers.

The only proof you have offered for these basic physics are small essays, not one equation or number to make it real science.

Since you happen to think it's impossible for air to act that way, why don't you post the equations that prove it?

It is "basic" physics.

Why haven't you posted the amount of angular momentum you claim was lost? If it's so basic, surely you could show some numbers that prove your physics argument, with actual physics.

Last time I checked physics required math, not debate.


Now you bring up the angular momentum "problem". The problem exists as much for a demo collapse as much as for a gravity driven collapse.

You keep claiming the angular momentum disappeared with the collapse.

But if the collapse was caused by explosives, doesn't the same "problem" exist? The floor still falls down, the tilting still stops. How do explosives explain it away, when the floors collapsed regardless of the cause.


In both scenarios the tilting is stopped by a floor collapsing. How do explosives make a total collapse somehow more total?


Oh yeah WCIP, my claims of non bias are about as dull as you spouting off your heartfelt agenda driven bias. And labtops claims to post all evidence.
Since you have claimed to be so completely biased on this subject WCIP we can hardly value your agenda driven opinion.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Wouldn't 9-11 have had the same effect without the buildings collapsing?


I would say no way in dead. Did the bombing of the basement have the same affect as 9/11? You really can't be serious can you? Yes, it still would have been a tragedy...but not that many peoplpe would have died if the buildings didn't fall. It's not the act of terrorism that's so horrible...it's the amount of deaths.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Great post, bsbray11.
I've given you a way above for that.



Originally posted by LeftBehind
Oh yeah WCIP, my claims of non bias...

New topic, please.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

....
Now you bring up the angular momentum "problem". The problem exists as much for a demo collapse as much as for a gravity driven collapse.

You keep claiming the angular momentum disappeared with the collapse.

But if the collapse was caused by explosives, doesn't the same "problem" exist? The floor still falls down, the tilting still stops. How do explosives explain it away, when the floors collapsed regardless of the cause.

..



you're right, unfortunately, he's is using 'angular momentum' and 'torque' interchangeably, tbh....

the approach of using all sorts of calculations to prove anything will most likely fail, because we lack the details to pull it off.

example: which columns were still partially intact at the beginning of the south tower's collapse? knowing their locations (and condition) is necessary to even get started (and there's no way to know what they looked like at that time, or is there?) furthermore, it's unreasonable to expect the tilted cap wouldn't encounter resisting forces when meeting undamaged floors below, at least affecting the process.

i urge you all not to get lost in the details, especially if there isn't enough data, it serves no purpose except creating unnecessary confusion (not directed at you LB)

the most damning aspect of this collapse is the total disintegration of the tilting 'cap' (as one piece, not progressively) before impacting anything. how's that supposed to happen ? a falling object experiences less load than a standing one, doesn't it?

[edit on 9-12-2005 by Long Lance]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I don't have anything to say about the WTC but I can absolutely guarantee that a plane hit the Pentagon.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Also, I was just curious..

Why do some of you keep referring to the attackers as Muslims? While I am well aware of the fact that they were Muslims, why aren't people calling them terrorists? Calling them Muslims is kind of a slanderous generalization IMHO.

[edit on 9-12-2005 by Jef Costello]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jef Costello
I don't have anything to say about the WTC but I can absolutely guarantee that a plane hit the Pentagon.


Does that mean you were there and actually saw it with your own eyes? If so, could you describe your experience for us? I was in Sterling, VA....right beside Dulles Airport that fateful day. Oh, on a side note....I moved to the DC area on September 10th....I remember my first trip to DC (I was living in Virginia at the time and live in DC now)...there were armed gaurds on EVERY corner. When I mean armed gaurds...I mean HumV's with a guy with a machine gun on top. Was like "were the heck have I moved to?" Sureal......



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin

Originally posted by Jef Costello
I don't have anything to say about the WTC but I can absolutely guarantee that a plane hit the Pentagon.


Does that mean you were there and actually saw it with your own eyes? If so, could you describe your experience for us? I was in Sterling, VA....right beside Dulles Airport that fateful day. Oh, on a side note....I moved to the DC area on September 10th....I remember my first trip to DC (I was living in Virginia at the time and live in DC now)...there were armed gaurds on EVERY corner. When I mean armed gaurds...I mean HumV's with a guy with a machine gun on top. Was like "were the heck have I moved to?" Sureal......


No I was not there on the eleventh but I was part of a group that were the first civilians allowed on the site.

During our tour we were taken on a roadway (that had been closed) that surrounds the Pentagon in a circular fashion. At one point we stopped to survey the area and I noticed a large gash in the roadway about three feet by fifteen feet and about two feet deep. When I asked the official what it was he told me that it had been made when the plane banked on its side during its final moments causing the wing to slice into the asphalt.

Also, I have no idea what rocket fuel smells like but the whole time we were there I was dizzy from the overbearing smell of jet fuel; the exact smell of an airport just strongly amplified.

I know this is not proof in any form but it's enough to convince me. I must apologize for not having photographs (they didn't let us take any).

[Another tidbit.. My fiance's long time friend works in the Pentagon and he claims to have seen a plane)



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Bsbray for such basic physics you seem to have trouble coming up with basic numbers.


Maybe that's because every time I try to get the numbers, to do calculations, I come to find that they don't exist for the public because your beloved NIST has them under lock and key. I'm confident that anyone with some common sense can see through this, though, as the problems are so obvious that figuring them out mathematically would be superfluous.


But if the collapse was caused by explosives, doesn't the same "problem" exist? The floor still falls down, the tilting still stops. How do explosives explain it away, when the floors collapsed regardless of the cause.


Maybe you missed this?:


With demolition, the 3rd source of energy would be an explosive that severed the contact between the caps and lower floors.


No more pivot, no more tilt, eh?


Originally posted by Long Lance
you're right, unfortunately, he's is using 'angular momentum' and 'torque' interchangeably, tbh....


Can you clear up the specifics, LL?

I get this for torque (emphasis mine):


The moment of a force; the measure of a force's tendency to produce torsion and rotation about an axis, equal to the vector product of the radius vector from the axis of rotation to the point of application of the force and the force vector.


And this for angular momentum:


The vector product of the position vector (from a reference point) and the linear momentum of a particle.


Maybe something to do with my background being in music and psychology, but the main difference there escapes me there. Not being sarcastic, as I was earlier, but just honestly wondering, for my own education, what the differences are in the usages of the words.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I get this for torque (emphasis mine):


The moment of a force; the measure of a force's tendency to produce torsion and rotation about an axis, equal to the vector product of the radius vector from the axis of rotation to the point of application of the force and the force vector.


And this for angular momentum:


The vector product of the position vector (from a reference point) and the linear momentum of a particle.



Torsion is the moment produced from a force.
Momentum is the speed (if you will) at which something is moving relative to a reference point.

I think when you use Angular Momentum you really mean Angular Moment. Angular momentum would just be the speed at which the angular moment is going. Make any sense? Simple mistake in English is all. They are close but moment is actually the "bending force" while momentum would be the speed at which the "bending force" would rotate.

Here is the definition of Moment from Dictionary.com: Hope this helps

Abbr. M Physics.
The product of a quantity and its perpendicular distance from a reference point.
The tendency to cause rotation about a point or an axis.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Bsbray for such basic physics you seem to have trouble coming up with basic numbers.


try and refute these numbers, then...dust cloud expansion

numbers are for precision. i can clearly look at anything that is just sitting there, and without plugging in any numbers, will be able to 'guess' that the total force vector = zero.

by the same token, if i see a feather fall onto a concrete block and smash the concrete block, i will know, without plugging in any numbers, that the feather was not soley responsible for the smashed concrete.

also, if something is supposed to be soley under the influence of gravity, then i can rest assured that nothing will be falling upwards(unless it's an australian building).

and, one of the biggest holes in the official math is the instant application of the full gravitational energy INSTANTLY dropping to the floor below it. this is not indicative of 'creep'. the speed at which things happen is paramount to accurate physics.

for one floor to drop nine or ten feet at the acceleration of gravity requires that ALL the supports(that's a lot of steel perimeter columns and steel core collumns to just instantly dissolve) give out simultaneously.

oh, yeah, and what about all those 'new' video recordings from across the river of bombs going off before the buildings fall? that certainly corroborates the REAMS of eyewitness tesimony of flashes at the base of the towers and huge explosions going off.

carry on. it must be lovely living in lollipop land.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I'll probably regret sticking my nose in this, but i'm bored and pretty stupid to boot, but i can run really fast
so here goes.......


Originally posted by MacMerdin

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Wouldn't 9-11 have had the same effect without the buildings collapsing?


I would say no way in dead. Did the bombing of the basement have the same affect as 9/11? You really can't be serious can you? Yes, it still would have been a tragedy...but not that many peoplpe would have died if the buildings didn't fall. It's not the act of terrorism that's so horrible...it's the amount of deaths.


Do we have a way of (reasonably) determining how many more lives were lost due to the collapse? The way i understand it, which ain't saying much admittedly, all those people on the floors above the point of impact were trapped and would have perished regardless of if the building(s) falls or not, yes? Aside from the, extremely brave, rescue workers everyone who could be evacuated (more or less) was prior to the collapse....or so i thought.

This is one problem i've always had with the controlled demo hypothesis. Why? If the towers don't fall we still have, more or less, the same amount of casualties. If the towers don't fall we still go into Afganistan. Know what i mean? Regardless i don't think it's reasonable to equate the '93 bombings with the 9-11 one....imo.


RE: "squibs:


1) Solid debris was ejected from the squibs in the form of concrete and other dust. Some suggest this dust was from the impacted regions. Since the most obvious squibs preceeded the rest of the collapse (the squibs that some alleged are air), this would mean that the air would've had to have carried the concrete dust, etc. down the building from the impact zone faster than the collapse itself. One observed squib was about 50 floors down from the collapse zone. This particular squib would require air to move down the building between 2 and 3 times the speed of the actual collapse. This would not be possible here, as there was nothing additional to propel to air. But, really there was nothing to propel the air at all, as...


I don't follow this a closely as you guys do, so cut me some slack but...Doesn't the pancake theory have the interior floors falling or "pancaking" prior to the exterior shell failing? Why do you feel whole floors collapsing one on top of the other won't provide enough pressure eventually to blow out the windows, as shown in the pic you posted? Also explains why you see the "squib" a. of the perceived "collapse zone". Seems logical to me. Are you suggesting that this is the result of a demolition charge going off? If so why is it blowing out like it shows in the pic...not saying you're wrong but i don't follow your logic here i guess.


2) The collapsing towers were being destroyed as they collapsed, both laterally and vertically. They were not airtight in the least. There was nothing to prevent air from escaping the buildings during their collapses, effectively preventing any great pressure from building in the first place.


Why do you believe that a skyskraper isn't, "airtight in the least"? Obviously where we see the "squib" we also see the exterior fascade is still intact (ie airtight, no?). You say, "There was nothing to prevent air from escaping the buildings during their collapses"..where exactly, in your opinion, could this air have gone if not out the exterior of the building, not up or down but out, which fits logically with the pancake theory also imo.

As to the angular momentum argument, wouldn't the increased lateral load caused by the "tipping" have contributed to collapse (re:pancake theory), isn't the burden of proof on the conspiracy theorist, ie., your figures to the contrary?




Of all the "controlled demo theories" out there, have any stated; what kind, how many, when and where were the explosives placed? I think leftbehind makes a valid point: " The only proof you have offered for these basic physics are small essays, not one equation or number to make it real science." Do ya'll have numbers to back your "demo theory" yet...retardation, momentum etc., etc., could be easily verified mathematically with little or no need for further debate (for those specifics atleast). It's interesting conjecture but eventually you guys are gonna have to back up your theory don't ya think.

*laces up sneakers, tightens tin-foil hat strap and hauls butt back to the origins forum*





[edit on 9-12-2005 by Rren]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren

Of all the "controlled demo theories" out there, have any stated; what kind, how many, when and where were the explosives placed? I think leftbehind makes a valid point: " The only proof you have offered for these basic physics are small essays, not one equation or number to make it real science." Do ya'll have numbers to back your "demo theory" yet...retardation, momentum etc., etc., could be easily verified mathematically with little or no need for further debate (for those specifics atleast). It's interesting conjecture but eventually you guys are gonna have to back up your theory don't ya think.


The problem with it is this.....we can't get ahold of the construction drawings to do any type of calculations. Don't you think I would love to figure out some of the physics behind what happened? NIST and FEMA both give contradicting values of what the dimensions were and everything else. You might say that we could do somekind of elementary calculations but not really. Without knowing with what and how they were constructed it is nearly impossible to do any type of structural analysis. I think this is what they are banking on. No one can peer review them without access to certain things.

As far as the people being trapped and all....the fires would have eventually burned out or been put out by the firemen so, no.....they wouldn't have all perished if the towers didn't fall.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
I don't follow this a closely as you guys do, so cut me some slack but...Doesn't the pancake theory have the interior floors falling or "pancaking" prior to the exterior shell failing?


I'm under the impression that pancake theorists are suggesting the outer walls are falling even with the inner destruction. At least I've never heard or read otherwise from FEMA, etc. That's aside from suggesting the core doesn't exist, or wasn't as strong as it actually was. The inner core structure should not have been falling at all. It was the perimeter columns that NIST claimed error with, and trusses, with their buckling, as exaggerated as that was anyway. The core structure would have acted indepedently and was massively strong, with something like 85% redundancy from its much thicker supporting columns.


Why do you feel whole floors collapsing one on top of the other won't provide enough pressure eventually to blow out the windows, as shown in the pic you posted?


Because the explosion is only in one place, and very violent in that one place when totally absent from the rest of the floor. This suggests the air bolted through the perimeter columns in that one spot alone. If you look at the floor charts posted above, and read what was said above, you'll get a better idea as to why this suggestion doesn't added up. Air is constantly moving from high to low pressure. There's just no way pressurized air could bolt across half a floor without equalizing with the air around it.


Are you suggesting that this is the result of a demolition charge going off? If so why is it blowing out like it shows in the pic...not saying you're wrong but i don't follow your logic here i guess.


This was covered in the above post, too, but it's because the charge initiated prematurely.

While on the topic, I posted this above:


Video clips taken from below the collapses, such as this one


And totally forgot to plug in that URL. I think this was the video I was referencing, from www.911research.com... But, I'm not at home and can't open the clip to double-check. If it's taken from ground level, and shows the explosions coming out in symmetrical rows, floor by floor without losing any speed, then that's the right clip. You should be able to see rows of squibs in that video, rather than just mis-fired, singular explosions.


Why do you believe that a skyskraper isn't, "airtight in the least"?


Because as it was collapsing, the columns were being blown out and there gaping holes for air all in it. See smoke and dust coming from it as it collapses? Those weren't generated from outside of the buildings. All that came from the inside and was ejected through massive gaps and holes being blown all over the buildings as they fell. Is one to think that air would not be coming out of the same holes blowing out concrete dust and smoke? The air from each floor would be freed as each floor was destroyed. No air would be built up.


Obviously where we see the "squib" we also see the exterior fascade is still intact (ie airtight, no?).


But the problem is, there would've been no pressure there to cause the squib. That, and the fact that for the air to blow out there would require an uncompressing stream to blow across half of a WTC floor. Air does not behave like this. Again, see the above post with the floor charts. The image with the "magical air missiles" and all the text prior to it should give you an idea of the problem.


You say, "There was nothing to prevent air from escaping the buildings during their collapses"..where exactly, in your opinion, could this air have gone if not out the exterior of the building, not up or down but out, which fits logically with the pancake theory also imo.


Up and out. As each floor was destroyed, the air went up and out.

Let me ask you, what do you think existed between each floor? Do you think that, as each floor is being utterly destroyed from above, anything that may even theoretically exist to retain air would remain intact? Do you think that, as each floor is blown outwardly, dust and debris and all, all the air is somehow going to go down the building in question? Do you think that, as any pressure began to build, the air would not begin coming out through the disintegrating upper floors?

And further, do you think that if air pressure even amounted at all, that it would streak across a WTC floor and bust out perimeter columns without flowing into the low-pressure air on the rest of the floor, and equalizing? And finally, do you even know how air behaves in the real world? Can you cite anything that even begins to lend credibility to the idea that pressurized air would plow through other air like some sort of missile without expanding and moving towards less-dense air as science dictates? Do you know how hurricanes work? Do you realize that if what you suggest is scientifically accurate, then we would not have hurricanes, which are created by high-pressure/low-pressure differences, but deadly lateral missiles of air that fly around blowing stuff up like explosives? And do you realize that the latter do not exist in real life? Only hurricanes.


As to the angular momentum argument, wouldn't the increased lateral load caused by the "tipping" have contributed to collapse (re:pancake theory),


If that's what happened, then why did the building began falling perfectly symmetrically? Why did the floors blow out on all corners at the exact same time, and fall perfectly vertically?


isn't the burden of proof on the conspiracy theorist, ie., your figures to the contrary?


Why should it be? The official story has not been proven. I'm sure it would seem like it, from the way "Bin Laden" and "al Qaeda" and all that jazz was flashed across TVs on all major news channels for so long after 9/11. But look into it, and NIST and FEMA reports will even admit to you that they have no real evidence to suggest what they're saying is true. They say this while simultaneously withholding all the critical numbers that are needed to prove demolition.

If the burden of proof is on anyone, it's on those that have all of the critical figures, have pushed their view the hardest to popularize it, and push the view that also happens to be the most non-compliant with physics from what we can observe from photos and videos. I'm still waiting for proof of a gravity-driven collapse. In the mean time, demolition has a lot more going for it in terms of not violating basic physics.


Of all the "controlled demo theories" out there, have any stated; what kind, how many, when and where were the explosives placed?


Yes, but this is no cut-and-dry area. There is no way to be sure how the explosives were set up, or even what kind they were. There's a strong suggestion of thermite use around the core columns, especially around the base. The "strong suggestion" is from a cotton-white smoke coming from the bases of the towers before their collapses, molten steel being found around the bases, and the lack of seismic activity that would indicate more violent explosives, among some other points that you can find simply by going back through this thread and reading its posts, especially LaBTop's for this subject.


I think leftbehind makes a valid point: " The only proof you have offered for these basic physics are small essays, not one equation or number to make it real science."


And so what do gravity-collapse theories have going for them?



Do ya'll have numbers to back your "demo theory" yet...retardation, momentum etc., etc., could be easily verified mathematically with little or no need for further debate (for those specifics atleast). It's interesting conjecture but eventually you guys are gonna have to back up your theory don't ya think.


Already been addressed, but no problem. Just go to NIST or any other relevant government agency and ask them to release the critical information to the public. And maybe while you're at it you can ask them for their mathematics. I hope that helps, and good look.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Much thanks for that clarification. So, if I just replace the term 'angular momentum' with 'angular momentum', my usage is golden, right?



Originally posted by MacMerdin
As far as the people being trapped and all....the fires would have eventually burned out or been put out by the firemen so, no.....they wouldn't have all perished if the towers didn't fall.


From personal observations, it seems to me that whenever the guys in charge do something, it's for multiple reasons that the event in question simultaneously serve.

For example, a link was posted somewhere linking to an article regarding a structural problem with the WTC. The article was allegedly from someone that experienced, first-hand, a meeting relating to the destruction of the WTC towers. And this was back in the early 1990s, if memory serves. The problem was that the buildings were so heavy that the structure was slowly sinking further and further into the ground and would eventually need to be deconstructed. The costs for deconstruction (as, for safety reasons, demolition was out of the question) would be much greater than the cost of construction, and much more than the buildings were actually worth. This is what the said article states.

So if the article is true, then who benefitted? Many people with varied interests. First of all, whoever owned the WTC would make money from insurance (in fact, quite a lot that Mr. Silverstein made), instead of losing tons of it to pay for the eventual deconstruction of the buildings. Secondly, the warmongers benefitted. PNAC needed its "new Pearl Harbor." Oil companies have benefitted with record profits, and all other military industries are making good money from the wars, I'm sure. The massive budget G. W. Bush set for the Pentagon shortly before 9/11 was instantly justified. Israel is also benefitting from increased military stability, as hostile Arab nations have now been invaded (and will probably be further invaded) by a friendly army, with new governments set up by the same friendly forces. Those wanting a more powerful US government have benefitted with legislation such as the Patriot Act.

There are most likely others that have benefitted directly or indirectly from the attacks, but those come to mind more quickly and are more easily identifiable. A massive amount of gold also went missing from the WTC complex. No doubt someone has benefitted from that. Another little action in relation to Project Hammer, maybe, LaBTop? (Yes, I've been slowly pouring over the information you've provided me thus far, and thank you for it. Plant Alkaloids and all, lol.
)

A lot of common interests satisfied by those attacks, in all likelihood.

[edit on 9-12-2005 by bsbray11]

[edit on 9-12-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   
hey, guys! haha, check out what happens when a government shill loses it's cool.....


I am not an Israely information agent, and I take offense.

I work at the American society of civil engineer, an office which contributed massively at the NIST report. I work at the public relation department, so if I seem angry when I post, its because my *** is on the line; they want to shut down our department because of people like you who oppose the official version. Politicians don't want another scandal.


that's from this page at physorgforum

it's a good thread. we're not the only forum with a hearty population of (increasingly frustrated, lol) professional 'debunkers'.



he's worried about his job. typical of that self-serving type. no conscience AT ALL. (except for the con science, of course)



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Much thanks for that clarification. So, if I just replace the term 'angular momentum' with 'angular momentum', my usage is golden, right?


You spelled them both the same.

Angular momentum = Angular speed
Angular Moment = Angular torque (bending force)

I believe it was just a typo. Actually....to make things easier....you could just use moment or torque....because a moment is always acting in the angular....I believe I'm describing this right....it's been awhile since I've taken dynamics. Plus, structural engineers rarely (at least as far as I have seen) have to use dynamics (physics in motion) because it would be a very bad thing to have a building in motion....so we use statics (stationary physics). Hope this helps.




top topics



 
3
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join