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.

 

POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers

page: 27
4
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by bsbray11
So, after reading the NIST report, can you tell me what exactly allowed the towers to collapse in full, from top to bottom, from the failure of single floors?


How much weight was that single floor carrying?


How much weight were the whole caps carrying? Everything above the impact points?

I'll give you a hint: much less than what was below.

You're suggesting that a relatively small amount of mass crushed entire buildings, from top to bottom, into nothing but dust and shards of steel. Symmetrically. Without losing speed the whole time.


No, I'm suggesting that the additional weight of each floor crushed the entire building as it went. By the time the building was down to the middle floors it was the weight of the top half of the building crushing the building. Only it was't crushing the building, it was crushing a floor at a time. A chain reaction.




posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by billybob
crushing something as hardy as concrete into powder requires a great downward force, and an EVEN GREATER upward resistance.


I'd say the foundations as depicted in the funky picture above look pretty solid. They look like they'd exert a fairly serious upward resistance.


but it's the connection between the wall and the floor joist that is blamed for failing. so, what's destroying the super-heavy duty core? or the super-heavy duty steel cage? why don't the floors just pancake down and leave, at least momentarily, a standing tube, and a standing core?
there is this ability of world trade centre's energy to be able to do infinite amounts of work that really should be harnessed. we wouldn't need oil, anymore.

anyway, the pulverisation occurs before the collapse barely gets moving, the top is mushrooming UPWARD and OUTWARD, and the dust turns into a pyroclastic flow which spreads out for blocks in all directions. the energy required to instantly turn concrete into tiny dust particles is immense. the energy expended for pulverisation would slow the towers to slower than acceleration due to gravity, fer sure.

oh yeah, and, *plonk*.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   
can anybody tell me if the NIST report was based on actual hands-on examination of the physical remains of the WTC's or speculation about how it could have happened?



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Here's an example of 90% from a whole building falling down, and STILL gravity is not enough to bring it down or break it apart :


STILL STANDING
12/5/2005 - Time to call in the other demolition crew.

Any room for doubt now ?

Edit: To remove link with questionable content.

[edit on 9-12-2005 by intrepid]



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Here's an example of 90% from a whole building falling down, and STILL gravity is not enough to bring it down or break it apart :


STILL STANDING
12/5/2005 - Time to call in the other demolition crew.

Any room for doubt now ?


Well don't you see that the building was not on fire at the top, that makes all the differnence you see, I don't know how but that must be why it didn't fall. lol That clip was funny, it goes to show just how much it actually takes to destroy a building, maybe they used jet fuel to finish it off.

[edit on 7-12-2005 by curious5]

Edit: To remove link with questionable content.

[edit on 9-12-2005 by intrepid]



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Any of you heard this one or heard of this guy.
www.randycrow.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   
A couple of hip hop songs on 911.
I dont think they add anthing to the debate in structural engineering terms

but are good to listen to

strong language

A personal attack on George W.
Virtuoso

911 (only 2 of the 3 verses)
Immortal Technique

911
Paris

[edit on 7-12-2005 by AdamJ]

[edit on 7-12-2005 by AdamJ]



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by curious5
Any of you heard this one or heard of this guy.
www.randycrow.com...


Nuclear bobmbs? what a whack job. Independent lab analysis showed no radioactivity whatsoever. He's a good Dem, though. He obviously hasn't even checked out his own page, to see all of the errors in it.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
No, I'm suggesting that the additional weight of each floor crushed the entire building as it went. By the time the building was down to the middle floors it was the weight of the top half of the building crushing the building. Only it was't crushing the building, it was crushing a floor at a time. A chain reaction.


Small problem: most of the debris was ejected off the sides.



In fact, about 80% of the debris landed outside of the footprint. And besides that, (a) the debris would have nowhere near the same momentum as an intact floor, and (b) enormous amounts of energy should have been lost on the destruction of each floor, if it was gravity-driven.

But the main point is most of the mass did not fall onto the floors below. Too bad, really, because you're trying to put some real thought into this. Much more and you'll be looking at it from our side, so be careful.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by justyc
can anybody tell me if the NIST report was based on actual hands-on examination of the physical remains of the WTC's or speculation about how it could have happened?


Both.

They have actual evidence, but refuse to release much of it. They have hordes of photographs, the actual blueprints, and who knows what else that they won't show us.

When it comes to their collapse explanations, they speculate and openly admit it. Actually, they don't even try to speculate how the whole buildings fell. They just dwell on the failure of one floor, by showing some perimeter column buckling, and suggesting sagging and bolts coming off and all number of things with no supporting evidence, and then state rather boldly that global collapse was then "inevitable." Kind of disappointing, really.

MacMerdin has began trying to replicate what NIST did, to double-check in a way, and he's already found big problems with their report. Certain diagrams they've provided apparently aren't accurate in the least, despite the fact that they have access to the actual blueprints. Comforting, eh?



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Here's an example of 90% from a whole building falling down, and STILL gravity is not enough to bring it down or break it apart :


STILL STANDING
12/5/2005 - Time to call in the other demolition crew.

Any room for doubt now ?


Okay, that was pretty funny and frustrating as hell for the demolition boss, I'll bet.

When they dropped Prince Henry's in Melbourne they had an even worse problem, the charges blew but "surface tension" held everything together for about twenty seconds before the weight became too much.

Alright, Boom, and why it didn't fall. My suggestions:

To go back to my crush theory, I'm pretty sure we'd find the debris underneath what's left standing to be pretty-well pulverised by the weight of what just landed on top of it. However, the amount left standing does lend credence to the energy-being-wasted argument.

I would, however, like to point out that that is quite a small building, with less time to for gravity to build momentum during the fall and that fall began near the bottom, not the top.

Edit: To remove link with questionable content.

[edit on 9-12-2005 by intrepid]



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
To go back to my crush theory, I'm pretty sure we'd find the debris underneath what's left standing to be pretty-well pulverised by the weight of what just landed on top of it.


Which was, again a minority of about 20% of the total debris. And actually - you wouldn't. The bottom perimeter walls were still standing. The much-stronger core was completely destroyed, and the basement floors were messed up, but the perimeter walls around the base still stood. A miracle, I'm sure.


However, the amount left standing does lend credence to the energy-being-wasted argument.


There is no such argument, unless you'd like to make one. I would find it pretty ignorant. The floors were made of industrial steel, and lots of it. Thick columns, both core and perimeter, made to hold much more then their own weight. And yet, each floor is blown out with no loss of momentum whatsoever. There was no slowing of the collapse, therefore the momentum, the energy behind the collapse was not being depleted. I think we can agree that the caps did not have unlimited amounts of kinetic energy at their disposal once in motion, right? This is basic physics dude. There is absolutely no excuse for the buildings to have fallen without slowing. This is directly indicative of another source of energy.

What about that is so wrong? The fact that it suggests demolition? So what? It's scientific. Basic physics, no less. If you don't want to be exposed to truth, don't post here. But if you have found a flaw with this science, be scientific in telling us wtf was wrong with the momentum of those buildings that day, that they were allowed to behave in such a way as they fell.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Alright, Boom, and why it didn't fall. My suggestions:

To go back to my crush theory, I'm pretty sure we'd find the debris underneath what's left standing to be pretty-well pulverised by the weight of what just landed on top of it. However, the amount left standing does lend credence to the energy-being-wasted argument.

I would, however, like to point out that that is quite a small building, with less time to for gravity to build momentum during the fall and that fall began near the bottom, not the top.


First, I have to disappoint you, the debris IN the basements was mostly heavy steel beams. Nobody had to shuffle out loads of pulverized "somethings", that's why it took them so long to excavate that portion of the building, it had to be cut in pieces, all of it. It was for the most of it, totally intertwined.
Btw, if your theory was right, no "natural" fires could have burned untill 19 December 2001 ! They would directly been cushioned off from access to the air by thousands of tons of pulverized concrete.

Btw, has anybody found any pictures of exactly THAT excavating process of the 3 basements ? I can't find ONE.
Whatever pictures of the real interesting clean up spots are nowhere to find online. Where are pictures of the bottoms of the elevator shafts?
These are the most wanted ones of all !


Secondly, regarding your last remark, you must interchange visually that misblasted building in that video with the caps of the 2 WTC towers.
Those WTC caps had even less freefall path before its mass hit the rest of the building, according to NIST, about max. 3 meters, the height of one WTC floor.
They didn't report the cap falling 10 meters caused by blowing out those 10 meters underneath the caps, while in that video, in contrast of the NIST report about the WTC caps, you see 10 meters of the lowest building part being blown to pieces, creating a freefall path of 10 meters.
It however still stood.....

The caps of the WTC towers basically "knacked" over a height of about 3 meters, on one side of the building, and then parts of the 2 adjacent sides "sprained", thus creating the slow circular movement of the whole cap.
And then the caps vanished.....
Not as a more or less square block of debris falling down in itself, but it blossomed UP in a strange mushroom cloud.

Which can not be explained otherwise than caused by a huge explosion.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
To go back to my crush theory, I'm pretty sure we'd find the debris underneath what's left standing to be pretty-well pulverised by the weight of what just landed on top of it.


Which was, again a minority of about 20% of the total debris. And actually - you wouldn't. The bottom perimeter walls were still standing. The much-stronger core was completely destroyed, and the basement floors were messed up, but the perimeter walls around the base still stood. A miracle, I'm sure.


However, the amount left standing does lend credence to the energy-being-wasted argument.


There is no such argument, unless you'd like to make one. I would find it pretty ignorant. The floors were made of industrial steel, and lots of it. Thick columns, both core and perimeter, made to hold much more then their own weight. And yet, each floor is blown out with no loss of momentum whatsoever. There was no slowing of the collapse, therefore the momentum, the energy behind the collapse was not being depleted. I think we can agree that the caps did not have unlimited amounts of kinetic energy at their disposal once in motion, right? This is basic physics dude. There is absolutely no excuse for the buildings to have fallen without slowing. This is directly indicative of another source of energy.

What about that is so wrong? The fact that it suggests demolition? So what? It's scientific. Basic physics, no less. If you don't want to be exposed to truth, don't post here. But if you have found a flaw with this science, be scientific in telling us wtf was wrong with the momentum of those buildings that day, that they were allowed to behave in such a way as they fell.


Oh, my God. You're the one saying that the energy used to crush each floor successively would actually be wasted and slow the whole process down...Geez, Louise, keep up.

I'm saying that that little video we all just had a good laugh at probably backs up what you're saying. Ber-lardy Hell!

And I'm talking about the debris under the building in the video. Flippin' 'ell...Did none of you notice the banner on the side of the building? It read "Boom".



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Sorry, HowlrunnerIV. I think I imagined the word "no" before the energy-being-wasted part, or energy-not-being-wasted or something to that nature. I tend to make assumptions, based on past postings, as to what people are saying. The people that are in and out of these threads debating for the official story hardly ever change stances over even single points, as if no claim a demo theorist brings up could possibly be correct because they assume the overall conclusion can't be. So yeah, I assumed you were staying on the opposite side of that one. Again, sorry. An honest mistake.


Edit: Thought, just to be fair, I'd mention that those that subscribe to a 9/11 conspiracy, in whatever form, hardly ever change positions, either. Er, at least over to the official story, anyway.

Btw, if your username was to be shortened, would you rather it be, like, Howlrunner, or what? Cause adding the IV there at the end makes it seem that much more formal when I address you, but maybe that's just me, or maybe you like it like that. Anyway, we already have an HR.



[edit on 8-12-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I've posted a link to the full video filmed from New Jersey with the explosion sounds before the collapse, in a thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
thanks for the reply bsbray11.

i also have another question that maybe someone could answer. if the NIST report is to be believed in regards to how the 2 towers and WTC7 fell, exactly what is being done to secure any current tower block made of steel and concrete from falling down when hit by a plane as that is now such an obvous weak spot in any building worldwide? should they not be banning people from actually working in such buildings if they are so dangerous to be in?

how many of you work in a tower block? have you asked your superiors how safe your building is?



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
just thought i would put this quote here for posterity......

swirsky was on the architectural team that designed the towers.


HARRIS: Exactly. That's what I want to ask you about. Which was it that made the biggest difference? Was it the impact felt from the larger plane, or was it the heat generated by the burning and that much fuel. 

SWIRSKY: I imagine, when I saw the pictures of the implosion of the building, it looks like the fuel must have leaked right to the core of the building, and from there it was the massive explosion that caused the building to collapse. So it was something completely unforeseen, so far as the design criteria was concerned. 



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Edit: To remove link with questionable content.

[edit on 9-12-2005 by intrepid]


Intrepid: why?



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Btw, has anybody found any pictures of exactly THAT excavating process of the 3 basements ? I can't find ONE.
Whatever pictures of the real interesting clean up spots are nowhere to find online. Where are pictures of the bottoms of the elevator shafts?
These are the most wanted ones of all !


There's a lot of photos here:

www.projectrebirth.org...










new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 24  25  26    28 >>

log in

join