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: 21
3
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
The fire at the base is flaming debris that flew down when the second plane hit.

www.flurl.com...
If you look carefully you can see a fire in the bg for a second past one of the fireman's heads at rougly the same area along with alot of white smoke.

www.flurl.com... The smoke can be seen when the camera turn here also emitting from the same area.


Out of curiosity... why would bombs be used in the basement when the collapse is top down?




posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I just now watched that video, and it definitely does show another source of white smoke from the bases of the WTC. Good find, but at the risk of sounding hard-headed, it just raises more questions for me. Was it out by 10:28, dissipated before the collapse of WTC1? What started the fire in the first place? Was it the only source of white smoke from the bases that morning?


What was that WCIP said about clutching for straws?




Hell, dude, the perimeter columns didn't even slow the whole time they fell. You know something's up with that.


Really? Well then why does the collapse start at close to the speed of the debris, and end up much slower?

At first.




And then near the end. This is also a great illustration for those of you who keep saying they fell at free fall with no resistance.




So as you can see it did not fall at the same rate as free fall in a vacuum, and there was resistance. If there was no resistance then why did the debris hit first and travel so much faster?



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   
LeftBehind, show me where I have claimed that the towers fell at free fall.

Why can't you get it into your head that I'm referencing the speed at which the towers fell? Does it just make so little sense to your argument that you refuse to even understand it? Maybe you just read it and shake your head rapidly and revert to your prior mental state? Because what you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.

The collapse speed did not slow. Where are words "free" and "fall" in that statement?

Give up?

THEY AREN'T!


Originally posted by ihatescifi
Out of curiosity... why would bombs be used in the basement when the collapse is top down?


Read what I just said about the core structures. They were the monsters that were holding the buildings up vertically, and were somewhat independent of the outer parts of the buildings.

When WTC1 was brought down, you could see core structure still standing for a bit through the dust cloud before collapsing straight down from the Hoboken Video. This totally flies all up in the face of the pancake theorists, who took after the earliest of government storytellers, who drew us all a picture of WTC Towers without cores. No buckling or sagging or people jumping up and down could ever bring down either tower without something else happening directly to the cores.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi
The fire at the base is flaming debris that flew down when the second plane hit.

...

Out of curiosity... why would bombs be used in the basement when the collapse is top down?



I agree the smoke at the bottom of WTC is probably just smoldering debre but i still believe bombs in the basement were used, probably not the kind that would produce a lot of smoke for this very reason.

Anyway as to why they would use bombs in the basement:




“If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”

- Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md.
CDI calls itself “the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures.”

source


I mean, these guys wrote the book.... literally!



A familar image you might say?




Remember, no one said it had to be perfect - 'twas a 'terrorist' event after all











[edit on 22-12-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Did you watch the artful dodger at work there Jedi? note how Mr BRay said:


How in the world do you debunk something like the witness reports of molten steel? With another witness? Seriously. Think about what you just said. There's either evidence for/against it or no evidence at all. Real science is objective, so where's the proof that there was no molten steel? Where's the proof that people didn't know what they were talking about? Where's the debunking?


After which I did several posts doing exactly what he asked, but when he came back on all he had to say was:



Originally posted by AgentSmith
Did you bother reading my posts that touch on the circumstances that could contribute towards high temperature underground fires, as well as the posts relating to the short amount of time that it would take for even Uranium based thermites to cool?


I read them but didn't see much more than speculation. Do I need to comment on that?


Note that I was giving a reasonable explanation for the molten and hot steel rather than just saying it wasn't true, this is especially irritating to some as rather than debunk their evidence you are suggesting a reasonable explanation for it which is much harder to get out of.
Notice how any theory other than ones relating to explosives are 'just speculation'.
Watch the master at work, the molten steel will eventually be brought up again in the near future once he is sure that everything I wrote is just a distant memory. No-one likes to argue with cold (no pun intended LOL) hard facts.

As to the loss of angular momentum, as the cap would have pivoted on one side and smashed into the building sideways and down, it will have put an extraordinary diagonal force on the structure below. The tower was designed to withstand a high wind spread across it's whole surface and the downward force of gravity. However it was not designed to have thousands of tons smashing into it sideways.
As it fell in on itself the stress on the picot point on the other side of the building will have been immense and the joints will have failed, not being designed to withstand such a thing obviously. What else to you expect? For it to pivot and just sort of hang there? It will have effectively destroyed it's own fulcrum. The rotation will have been slowed by the resistance from ploughing through the building and as someone already said would stop once the fulcrum was removed.
You can't tell me an area where the floors join to the exterior columns is designed to have 10 floors swinging on it and not fail are you?



Basically, sir, you would have us believe that the area cirlced in red, where the floors join with the exterior columns, should be able to withstand the force of the cap pivoting at that point longer than it did? And then after these joins failed (not because it far, far exceed their load bearing capability though), the cap would carry on turning with no fulcrum and plenty of resistance to stop it, all the while being magically suspended in the air.
You can see that due to the way it pivoted it will have been smashing into the building below in a sideways motion, or should the building have withstood that too?

Can you draw us a diagram of what you think the cap should have done? Slid off maybe? just hung there? cheers


[edit on 22-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Yes of course what a ridiculous idea, back to the mini-nukes and lepricorns..

..



what a ridiculous idea that you believe you can taint our posts and train of thought by bringing up micronukes, that won't work.

for the record (123312th time probably) i don't know how exactly the wtc was destroyed, i never claimed i did, but your version is, well, dunno who said it, probably Wecomeinpeace, it's as full of holes as swiss cheese at the shooting range.


you, of course, know that, you're just delaying the inevitable (not by much, imho), by your diversive posting in denial of anything that sheds even the faintest light on the issue.




While your at it please explain how the metal stayed at high temperature without a heat source.. I looked at some sites relating to steel maufacturing and from what I've seen it can stay hot for days - in controlled ovens designed to cool it down slowly... So what kept it hot in this case?



So, you're no longer denying it was very hot for a unusually long time? Interesting, but tbh, i am unable to explain the holes in your theory.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by Long Lance]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
what a ridiculous idea that you believe you can taint our posts and train of thought by bringing up micronukes, that won't work.


Actually I think you'll find it was laBtop that brought up mini-nukes - a pro-demolition theory person. In his defence he also does his own research and seems like a pretty clever guy.

I've had one pro-demolition person already say to me my theories are viable, in fact he said they were as viable as the explosives idea. So if you can show us, scientifically, how my information is wrong that would be greatly appreciated. You have also neglected to show how the high temperatures were sustained after I have shown they would have fallen within 24 hours.


So, you're no longer denying it was very hot for a unusually long time?


I am merely providing an alternative theory to explain the high temperatures that doesn't involve explosives or thermite. More importantly I also showed that even if Uranium based thermite was used and reached temeratures of over 4000 degrees Celsius it would still have cooled after 24 hours - hence showing that a continuing heat source would need to be present - ie underground fires.


Interesting, but tbh, i am unable to explain the holes in your theory.


So you are basing your mockery of my research on what exactly? If you are 'unable to explain the holes in my theory' then how do you know it has any?

Because WCIP says so? Unable to form our own opinons are we? WCIP might be wrong? WCIP is probably one of the few worthy opponents here, most of you are just demolition theory shills. That award's below his name, not yours. Quit tugging at his coat tails and do some work yourself for a change.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

..
Actually I think you'll find it was laBtop that brought up mini-nukes - a pro-demolition theory person. In his defence he also does his own research and seems like a pretty clever guy.

I've had one pro-demolition person already say to me my theories are viable, in fact he said they were as viable as the explosives idea. So if you can show us, scientifically, how my information is wrong that would be greatly appreciated. You have also neglected to show how the high temperatures were sustained after I have shown they would have fallen within 24 hours.



Yes, it was LT's idea, but i found such speculation not very relevant at that point, since my approach is more about plausibly demonstrating the official theory's shortcomings (debunking it, so to speak).

Now, the issue i have with your approach is that it's not my fault that there as way too much heat, and it's not my job to give definitive answers (nor anybody elses' on this forum), it's the job of NIST, FEMA and whoever's responsible for investigating the collapses. If they can't handle it, they should provide all data they have so more people can examine it.


if they contninue to sit on it, while the official version becomes more and more untenable day by day, they will predictably lose all credibility they have, and rightly so. you know, it's not a conspiracy theory anymore, when large branches of the government and many agencies resort to secretive obstruction of any investigation concerning 9-11.

it's secretive, it's organised and it's designed to keep us all out of the loop, what would you call it?



edit:



So you are basing your mockery of my research on what exactly? If you are 'unable to explain the holes in my theory' then how do you know it has any?



i could answer using conjecture: 3k tons of Thermite, Nukes, Coal, and so on, your theory cannot account for the discrepancy, so it's 'debunked' see?

unless you are able to explain what was seen at ground zero by the material present in the towers before the collapse + 2 aircraft + fuel, your theory is useless. when you acknowledge that more and different fuel was present, you swap sides, it's that simple.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by Long Lance]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 05:53 AM
link   
That's why we do our own research using what we have available and form our own opinons. While you have people taking an offensive approach with alternative theories, there also needs to be a representaion of more conventional explanations. I just look for conventional explanations for the various points that are brought up, in this case I believe I have raised some very good points and I'm still waiting for them to be addressed. I might start a seperate thread actually.

As for the NIST and FEMA reports, how many people have actually read all the information from cover to cover? Not many probably - I know I don't have time and most people are too busy to do so or can't be bothered. As such, it's difficult to criticise what they say without having read it all properly and understanding it. Of course you might have read it and I'm sure some people have - just that I can't really agree or disagree with your statement having not done so fully myself.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
i could answer using conjecture: 3k tons of Thermite, Nukes, Coal, and so on, your theory cannot account for the discrepancy, so it's 'debunked' see?

unless you are able to explain what was seen at ground zero by the material present in the towers before the collapse + 2 aircraft + fuel, your theory is useless. when you acknowledge that more and different fuel was present, you.


Not quite sure what you are getting at, I offered possible explanations (or at least partial explanations) using the expected materials and conditions.
Maybe the words you hear in your head are different to the ones you read or something, I can't explain it. You seem rather muddled in your thoughts anyway. Where's your scientific rebuttel to everyting I said? Bullet points please for clarity.
Also, still waiting to hear what additional materials from any type of known explosive or incendinary would be present to cause the prolonged periods of high temperature to contradict my more conventional theory.
Maybe my calculations were wrong, but I wish someone would point this out - explaining how and why, not forgetting the correct ones.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
What if a hidden type of technology was used to bring down the towers?

If a government, a radical nation or select few were planning something as big as 911 you better believe they would have had access to some type of technology unknown to the private or public sector.

A type of technology that can not only bring down three massive steel structures into their own footprint but also pulverize steel and concrete into dust and ash within a matter of seconds.

What type of technology was used, your guess is as good as mine, could be some kind of sound wave technology. Who knows and it doesn’t matter that’s not the point.

Whoever was responsible for 911 obviously had the time and resources and all they needed to pull it off was the single most important element and that was a means to CONTROL the masses.

That’s why Jumbo Jets were needed as a way to shock and awe the American public and to instill the fear needed to control and confuse the masses and have them believe anything even when the obvious is staring them smack right in their face.

Just need to think outside the box people!!!



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
In reply to ShroudOfMemphis:

Astually the pictures look entirely different. The controlled demo has all of the wall collapsing at once whereas the WTC is a progressive collapse. If bombs were to have taken out the main core the outside of the building would have most likely sagged down and collapsed at the same time like in your demo picture.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mdefab01
What if a hidden type of technology was used to bring down the towers?

If a government, a radical nation or select few were planning something as big as 911 you better believe they would have had access to some type of technology unknown to the private or public sector.


Hush-a-boom?

Marvin Martian’s disintegrator ray?

Photon Torpedoes?

Witchcraft?



A type of technology that can not only bring down three massive steel structures into their own footprint but also pulverize steel and concrete into dust and ash within a matter of seconds.


What steel was pulverized?

As for the concrete floors of the towers, do you realize that they were only 4 inches thick and almost an acre in area per floor? To put this into an easily visualized perspective, that would be the same thickness to area ratio as a 6 foot square area of potato chips placed side by side, end to end.

How quickly do b[]you think that should crumble into dust given the massive forces involved in a collapsing building?



What type of technology was used, your guess is as good as mine, could be some kind of sound wave technology. Who knows and it doesn’t matter that’s not the point.


Maybe it was good old fashioned gravity.

Remember: Gravity, it’s not just a good idea, it’s the law!



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
[
Not quite sure what you are getting at, I offered possible explanations (or at least partial explanations) using the expected materials and conditions.
Maybe the words you hear in your head are different to the ones you read or something, I can't explain it. You seem rather muddled in your thoughts anyway. Where's your scientific rebuttel to everyting I said? Bullet points please for clarity.


now let's re-exmaine the 'scientific' badge you're in love with so much. there's a paragraph of immediate interest...


Originally posted by AgentSmith
In addition I did the same calculations for a 30cm sphere of Liquid Iron (what thermite leaves behind) heated to 2500deg C (2773.15 deg K).
...

After 24 hours through radiative heat loss alone it would be approx 295.81 deg Kelvin or ..... wait for it.... 22.6 deg C
..
The calculations are as follows:

Using an emissitivity of 0.79 (from prevous site), density of 18.95g/cm3 and a boiling point of 4131°C (Boiling point appears to be higher than burning temperature, based on comparison of Iron boiling temperature (2861 °C) and the temperature of the thermite reaction (2500 °C) ).
Once again a 30cm sphere.



now before i get into details, let me start out saying that, since you've shown an unmistakeable tendency to shove equations into people's faces, apparently relying on the shok&aw factor math has on the web (which, for some ungodly reason noone has done yet, even though it's obvious!) , i don't feel the urge to disclose formal equations to you, since it's not really necessary to make the point and because i don't intend to give you more ammunition for your disinfe campaign - more on that in the 2nd half of this rather lenghty post. ok, complete with


  • bullet
  • points


as requested



  • So, you're calculating heat transfer by radiation for something buried below rubble, rather curious if you ask me, that's apparently the worst place to use such a model, which didn't deter you of course, because it's math, hey no-one questions math, or.. or are there any heretics around?
  • ok, now that we know that your whole idea is stuff ready for de-bunking, let's expand on the subject, the 30cm ball of metal...
    has it ever occured to you that size matters, energy content is proporitonal to mass is proportional to Volume, which is proportional to the 3rd power of diameter...

    energy transfer by conduction (yes, that's what you'd expect from buried stuff) is proportional to surface area, varying with the 2nd power of diameter. Which means, a larger ball takes longer to cool


    wether a ball is a good place to sart or not is another matter entirely.



for all you equation-loving folks out there, i prefer not to show my cards, but this time one will have to be used:

Temperature follows an exponential function

absolute temp........... Ta
environment temp..... Te
time constant ............Ct
time..............................t

whereas Ct = [ (density as in mass/volume) * (heat capacity) * Volume ] divided by [ (conductivity as in Watts per Kelvin and square meter) * (surface Area)]


Ta = Te + (Ta-Te)*exp[-t/(Ct)]


you can see the time constant contains Volume in the enumerator and area in the denominator - volume grows faster, thereby increasing cool off time.

if you had ever bothered to use different numbers, you'd have noticed that cooling takes longer with larger pieces, same with radiation based heat transfer, Volume to Area relationship doesn't change. perhaps that's what you did, after all, why did you settle for a measly 30cm ball ?

-----
to everyone:

bear in mind that all of this does not contain any real data, since no-one confirmed a) what the molten metal really was b) how much there was c) the insulating properties of the surroundings are unkown anyway.

and finally i need to debunk only the model, right?

next:






Originally posted by AgentSmith
Actually the white smoke some have attributed to thermite is also explained by the charcoal theory:

The smoke will start out white. This is the water vapor burning off. Next the smoke will go blue/grey which is the alcohols and phenols burning off. Then the smoke appears yellow, which is the tar burning off. Finally the smoke will clear and you will just see waves of heat.


Phase two: cooling the 700° C charcoal to a point where it wouldn't just burst into flames the minute it saw the light of day.
www.regia.org...


700 deg C, sounds familiar.... (Don't forget this is during the process which creates this - it burns hotter).

In addition I'm surprised that more people don't attribute at least some of the white smoke to steam from the water dousing the fires, burst water mains, etc.




ok, so we're supposed to have conditions suitable to creating charcoal inside the rubble - which of course requires oxygen deprivation - then, we need furnace-like conditions and in between you posted the subway tunnel pic, 'cause pics work, right? (post # 1872137)

take your pick, i'd say, but it's all futile, because i'd dead sure you were among the deniers of long lasting high temps a few weeks ago, now you're obviously following the 'if you can't use it - abuse it' logic.

anyway, congrats, your disinfo campaign takes the cake, I'd vote you for 'way beyond credible' if such an award existed.

d'bunked.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
if you had ever bothered to use different numbers, you'd have noticed that cooling takes longer with larger pieces, same with radiation based heat transfer, Volume to Area relationship doesn't change. perhaps that's what you did, after all, why did you settle for a measly 30cm ball ?


I used solid spheres, which works in favour of slower cooling times. I doubt the steel I-beams are 30cm thick and any thermite would have puddled, increasing the surface area and causing it to cool faster.

A 100cm Sphere of Steel would still only be 417 deg C after 24 hours from 1200 deg C which would not even be visible let alone molten:



A 100cm sphere of Uranium would be 210.21 deg C after 24 hours from 4131 deg C.

So what were you saying about size? As I said molten metals would have a greater surface area to lost heat from and the beams and such were not that thick.



bear in mind that all of this does not contain any real data, since no-one confirmed a) what the molten metal really was b) how much there was c) the insulating properties of the surroundings are unkown anyway.


The best, hottest metal anyone has suggested is Uranium. And you're right about the insulating properties, but how much difference would it make? Someone described metal flowing, doesn't sound like too confined a space and they obviously could see it.




ok, so we're supposed to have conditions suitable to creating charcoal inside the rubble - which of course requires oxygen deprivation - then, we need furnace-like conditions and in between you posted the subway tunnel pic, 'cause pics work, right? (post # 1872137)


Conditions will have changed as things burned and the pile settled, don't forget the actions of recovery and rescue crews will ahve moved stuff around.



take your pick, i'd say, but it's all futile, because i'd dead sure you were among the deniers of long lasting high temps a few weeks ago, now you're obviously following the 'if you can't use it - abuse it' logic.


No, as I said I am open to suggestion and I simply seek to find more conventional explanations for different scenarios based on the assumption they are accurately reported.



d'bunked.


I don't think so.

So can you do some workings with that amazing brain of yours and come up with some figures relating to how long these materials will have been able to sustain such high temperatures? If I can't expect people to just take my word for it without showing proof, nor can you I'm afraid.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
You can't tell me an area where the floors join to the exterior columns is designed to have 10 floors swinging on it and not fail are you?





Actually, once the tilting reached a few degrees past vertical, the load paths would have have no longer gone straight down the columns and the entire top would have started to rack out sideways like so:




posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


Hush-a-boom?



yes, howard. 'hushaboom'. that's what everybody who made audio recordings of explosions can use to explain the sharp spikes.

you realise that the energy of sound is proportional to the input energy that makes the sound, right?

well, if this was as gradually building energy release, as your bunk claims, why does the audio start with a HUGE spike, and then NOT ramp up slowly, like the official energy release curve would have us beLIEve?

i love the repeated denial that people didn't know what they were hearing.

like, EVERYONE reported hearing a SECONDARY EXPLOSION(which also implies that there was a PRIMARY explosion, HA!)

how does a 'buckling failure' happen INSTANTLY?

GIVE UP, howard. you and yours are going down in apancake collapse.

and, BTW, all that force in the staiwells, and whatnot can easily be explained by a SHOCKWAVE, and in fact, are better explained by a shockwave.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
how does a 'buckling failure' happen INSTANTLY?



It didn't happen instantly. The buckling of the exterior walls is quite visible in the photos take just before the collapse.

With the weight of the top of the building, did you expect it to happen in slow motion?



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Did you watch the artful dodger at work there Jedi? note how Mr BRay said:


How in the world do you debunk something like the witness reports of molten steel? With another witness? Seriously. Think about what you just said. There's either evidence for/against it or no evidence at all. Real science is objective, so where's the proof that there was no molten steel? Where's the proof that people didn't know what they were talking about? Where's the debunking?


After which I did several posts doing exactly what he asked, but when he came back on all he had to say was:



Originally posted by AgentSmith
Did you bother reading my posts that touch on the circumstances that could contribute towards high temperature underground fires, as well as the posts relating to the short amount of time that it would take for even Uranium based thermites to cool?


I read them but didn't see much more than speculation. Do I need to comment on that?


Note that I was giving a reasonable explanation for the molten and hot steel rather than just saying it wasn't true, this is especially irritating to some as rather than debunk their evidence you are suggesting a reasonable explanation for it which is much harder to get out of.
Notice how any theory other than ones relating to explosives are 'just speculation'.
Watch the master at work, the molten steel will eventually be brought up again in the near future once he is sure that everything I wrote is just a distant memory. No-one likes to argue with cold (no pun intended LOL) hard facts.


Emphasis mine on that part, as again, your "reasonable explanation" was a bunch of speculating. You know? Not like the collapse physics, which you can watch. And again, I don't expect to make any strong cases on what kind of explosives I think were used.

So where are the "cold hard facts" that there was some kind of charcoal fire under the debris? I skimmed over those posts but really didn't see anything but speculating, and I told you that you could get off our speculation on the bombs, because we can't prove what kinds were used, etc. That's why I said we should stick the stuff that we could see, hear, etc., ie something objective, rather than comparing speculations.


As to the loss of angular momentum,


Like this! That's a more objective subject. Not what you think happened under the debris. Again, what is there to comment on that? You speculated. I can do that too, if you want, but it won't get us anywhere or ultimately matter in the least.


as the cap would have pivoted on one side and smashed into the building sideways and down, it will have put an extraordinary diagonal force on the structure below. The tower was designed to withstand a high wind spread across it's whole surface and the downward force of gravity. However it was not designed to have thousands of tons smashing into it sideways.
As it fell in on itself the stress on the picot point on the other side of the building will have been immense and the joints will have failed, not being designed to withstand such a thing obviously.


Problem: since when does applying extra weight on one side of a building cause a whole floor to give way, on all sides, at the same instant? The side being applied the most weight would go first, and the ensuing collapse would not be symmetrical.

Make sense?



You can't tell me an area where the floors join to the exterior columns is designed to have 10 floors swinging on it and not fail are you?

Basically, sir, you would have us believe that the area cirlced in red, where the floors join with the exterior columns, should be able to withstand the force of the cap pivoting at that point longer than it did? And then after these joins failed (not because it far, far exceed their load bearing capability though), the cap would carry on turning with no fulcrum and plenty of resistance to stop it, all the while being magically suspended in the air.
You can see that due to the way it pivoted it will have been smashing into the building below in a sideways motion, or should the building have withstood that too?

Can you draw us a diagram of what you think the cap should have done? Slid off maybe? just hung there? cheers


And then to wrap it up, you straw-man it.

What should have happened to the cap is not relevant to the loss of angular momentum. My point is here not "the caps should have fallen off!," or "the caps should have done this or that," but that they lost their angular momentum right as a symmetrical collapse began. That doesn't make sense any way you spin it. Well, except for the way you spin it, which is to ignore the fact that the ensuing collapse was even across all floors and not limited to the portion of the building handling extra weight. But that isn't being all-encompassing, now is it? It's just taking what's convenient to mention on a single issue, and leaving the rest of what we know out.

To illustrate with your own picture,



First of all, the caps were not allowed to tilt that much, but only 15 degrees or so before the tilt was lost.

Second, the collapse happened nothing at all like that and you know it. As the tilt stopped at around 15 degrees, 2.5 seconds into it approximately, again, the floors began collapsing EVENLY, blowing out all columns on any single floor within a very small amount of time.

It was't the failure of one side of the building, or one corner, etc. To suggest this is to show utter ignorance on the collapses. Either one of them. The weight was bearing down on a certain portion, yes, but that portion alone did not fall. The whole damned buildings did in an even and symmetrical fashion, all the way down, without losing momentum.

Maybe understand the argument before you try to debunk it next time?



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I've had one pro-demolition person already say to me my theories are viable, in fact he said they were as viable as the explosives idea.


You mean MacMerdin? Because if so, you're twisting his words around quite a bit. In fact, I think he said, if not for all of the physics problems that you can't explain, neither of our cases have any evidence.

That's far from saying it's as viable as ours. Seems like you read a little too much into that one, eh?


So if you can show us, scientifically, how my information is wrong that would be greatly appreciated. You have also neglected to show how the high temperatures were sustained after I have shown they would have fallen within 24 hours.


Ok, assuming there were somehow charcoal fires feeding off of what little paper there would have been down there, let alone how little jet fuel, or whatever else you would attribute the long burn to, how would that prove gravity-driven collapse?

..It wouldn't.

You're focusing on a issue that relates to our speculations on what types of explosives were used. Again, your speculation on top of ours. The issue ultimately has little bearing whatsoever on what brought the towers down. And then, of course, it's just speculation, too. Not saying that our speculations on types of explosives aren't. Just saying that maybe you shouldn't make an all-or-nothing case based on pure speculation.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
It didn't happen instantly. The buckling of the exterior walls is quite visible in the photos take just before the collapse.


Only when the caps were tilting. But then, what would you expect? I thought your argument was that heat did it?




top topics



 
3
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join