It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 06:06 PM
Alright, enough mudslinging, that's for another forum. Topic please.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Muaddib
Part of one of the towers that fell down took almost half of a part of the bottom of wtc7

I'd love to see pictures of that. And then I'd love to be shown how taking out a chunk of a building's base in one direction causes it to fall straight down upon itself and not backwards.

plus there was burning debris and fuel which was blown by the explosions and the collapse into wtc7....

Any evidence of this? Building 7 is some distance from WTC 1 and 2, and there is no known evidence of any pieces of burning debris or fuel (as ridiculous as that is, because the only fuel outside of the buildings was the fuel in the big fireballs, which was of course being spent as it burned), so far as I know, hitting any part of Building 7 as a result of the impacts.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Before 9-11 the only plausible scenario of a 707 hitting the WTC was of one landing

This isn't true at all.

Shadow, on the very morning of 9/11, the NRO was practicing evacuating their HQ as a part of plane-into-building scenario. And this is a much smaller building.

In 1945, a B25 crashed into the Empire State Building.

Samuel Byck hijacked a plane in 1974 and intended to crash it into the White House. In 1994, hijackers threatened to fly Flight 8969 into the Eiffel Tower.

So this stuff isn't new since 9/11, and anyone building such massive towers would definitely take into consideration such disasters. You have people that worked on the designs, construction, etc. for the WTC Towers, including the on-site construction manager Frank Demartini, on record saying those towers could take plane impacts and still stand without problem. Like pencils jabbed into netting, as Demartini said: the net holds just fine.

So when people come off saying "those people couldn't have possibly imagined something like this happening!," they're putting their own personal views onto experts that work in the field on the very projects in question and would certainly know much, much better whether or not the buildings were designed to withstand this or that.

When you say they couldn't have imagined it, what you mean is that you couldn't have imagined it, and therefore you don't see how they could either. That's fine, I suppose, because it wasn't your job to look into things like this, but the construction manager, architects, etc., though, will know about these things, and those that were involved in the construction of the WTC Towers have, again, said that those buildings were designed to withstand jet impacts.

Originally posted by billybob
When have you ever seen a modern sky scraper fall over side ways?

I have seen some really ignorant comments made about whether or not the towers should have fallen sideways on this thread. Not so much this one, but comments like "they could've only fallen sideways if they were pushed from the top," etc., a bunch of insanely wrong statements.

It would be extremely easy for the towers to fall to one side. In fact, it would be near impossible, if not impossible outright, for either of the towers, or Building 7, to fall straight down by gravity alone.

You can see that the South Tower most obviously began to fall sideways anyway:

But soon stopped for reasons I'll get to in a moment.

When something falls, it will fall where there is the least resistance to gravity. Gravity is what is pulling an object downwards towards the Earth. In the case of the towers, when they began falling, it would've been much easier and taken much less energy, because of much less resistance, for them to fall sideways. Obvious from the above graphic (and this happened to a lesser extent in the North Tower, too), they were already falling in this manner.

Seeing as how perimeter and core columns were only damaged in specific regions of the towers (where the planes had impacted), common sense would hold that the towers would fall into these damaged areas, as the missing columns would have provided the least resistance to gravity and offered the building with a way to fall. The buildings do lean outwards, but not by much, and it soon comes to an end, while vertical collapses of the buildings upon themselves and down to their own footprints roar on.

So, instead of falling into the area where there would be the least resistance to gravity, and where it would be easiest to fall upon the Earth, the buildings somehow begin falling perfectly evenly across the floors, falling straight down in a perfectly symmetrical manner at a ridiculously fast rate and seemingly without retarding - even as massive amounts of energy would have been spent to crush each floor, and the columns were becoming thicker and thicker all the way down.

I should also note that while the buildings were leaning outwards, they were simultaneously falling straight downwards, meaning there were two different movements going on at once for a little while as the buildings collapsed that totally contradicted each other (the buildings leaning outward would put more weight against one side of the towers, and so the towers falling downward perfectly evenly and symmetrically floor-by-floor makes little sense).

The fact that the leaning outwards stopped is extremely telling.

When an object moves, it has momentum, almost by definition. In the case of the towers, and in the case of the towers leaning outwards, this momentum is known as "angular momentum," because the buildings are leaning out at an angle from a fulcrum - in this case the point in where the floors are breaking away from one another as the top floors fall outwards. The angle of tilt was something like 15 degrees in the case of the South Tower.

So the towers leaning outward is called angular momentum. Now, I'm sure you've all heard Newton's First Law of Motion...

An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Well, first of all, the parts of the building falling outward were massive. I don't think I have to describe to you how massive they were. That's enormous momentum. It's going somewhere - and it's going there hard.

Second of all, whatever "unbalancing force" acted upon the towers - if any - would necessarily be pretty much equal and opposite. That means, since the angular momentum in the towers stopped completely at around 2 or 3 seconds or so, going from 90-degrees straight up to about 75-degrees in that amount of time, and then staying around 75 degrees until the caps were obliviated, whatever would have "unbalanced" the tower caps would not have just unbalanced them but cancelled them out completely. No more angular momentum at all. Sort of like if two objects hit each other head-on going at the same speed, they cancel each other out and sit still in an ideal environment. Well, a similiar situation would've had to have taken place at the WTC to stop that momentum if you were to believe the official story.

Unfortunately, Superman was not out on 9/11 and I don't remember any other heros or monsters of any sorts pushing back on the buildings to cancel out the angular momentum. There was literally nothing in the sky that day that could have possibly pushed back on those buildings to cancel out that momentum.

So how did they stop? Well, there's another way for them to have stopped moving without breaking any laws of physics, and that way is very, very suggestive of demolition theory. The other way, which is the only remaining logical answer to this problem, is that the frames of the caps were shattered. This means that by some explosive means, the structures within the top floors that were breaking away at an angle were destroyed.

Imagine holding a long, heavy board over your head. You're doing a decent job balancing it, but then it begins to lean and you can't muster enough strength to line it back up, and it falls at an angle (it inherits angular momentum). The board will continue falling at that angle until it hits the ground or until somebody catches it. But, imagine that the board is somehow sliced into small, 2" pieces mid-fall. What happens to the board? Does it continue to fall down at an angle until it hits the ground? No! The individual pieces, no longer acting in relation to the rest of the board, lose their angular momentum and proceed to fall straight down.

This same principle is the only logical explanation of why the angular momentum in the Twin Towers disappeared, since Newton's First Law of Motion doesn't work because there was nothing that could have possibly countered the massive amount of momentum in the caps. There was only air and smoke over the towers that morning, and we all sure as hell know that those wouldn't stop those buildings from falling.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Muaddib

it does not work like that Billybob...

i said a ROUGH analogy.

the boat does not represent the skyscaper. the boat represents the space in which the force of moving masses is contained. if you would understand it better, imagine that the boat is on top of a spout of water(the spout of water would be the tower) which is descending back down(like in cartoon whale depictions, you know?).
okay, the boat would be on top of the spout, and the spout is going down because of gravity. these conditions satisfy both the official and conspiracy theory. the towers didn't fall up. we can agree on that.

once again, the person in the boat represents the center of gravity. if the center of gravity shifts to one side, there is a cascading effect that occurs with the momentum(represented by the water in the boat). in order for the collapse to be symmetrical, the person in the boat has to be dead center. once the building begins tilting to one side, or one side starts collapsing faster than the other(as can be clearly seen in at least one video of one of the big towers. the builidings collapse should start cascading in that direction.
like you, i realise boats and buildings are different. i was just trying to think of a simple analogy that illustrates the way mass acts in motion. a 'flow' of shattered concrete and steel is a 'fluid' mass in motion, just as the water in the boat is a fluid motion dynamic.

and, wecomeinpeace, i'll take you up on tower seven. it was clearly imploded by team of crack professionals from the nwo shadow government.
what's also clear, is that it was used as a command center for the demolition of towers one and two.

[edit on 14-11-2005 by billybob]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:18 PM

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
When have you ever seen a modern sky scraper fall over side ways?

The real question is "when have you ever seen a skyscaper demolished, period"? What if the plan was to create chaos and in the process get rid of the buildings that are filled with asbestos and make it's new owner butt-loads of money?

I mean, they couldn't possibly demo the buildings now could they? So my vote goes for the most evil "WIN-WIN" situation scenario of all time: scare the crap out of the world and get rid of the asbestos problems.

Seriously, what about the exposion just before the collapse that was recorded and displayed in "Loose Change" plus all the secondary explosions reported by the firefighters?

And what are the odds of not just one building falling almost entirely from fire but three? A bazillion to one? A quadrillion to one? Are these even numbers? C'mon gang - grow up and face the big peoples truth. You are being lied to and controlled.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:22 PM
why must people resort to name calling, lol. So the weight of say 20 floors above the pont of impact was soooo heavy it caused the 100 floors below it to collapse?
wooow and i'm thick eh?(even if God picked up the part of the tower above point of impact and DROPPED it on the other floors that wouldn't happen lol)Okay boys and girls if i fire a missile into the same place one of the planes hit the entire tower would have come down? Sweet Jebus

[edit on 14-11-2005 by Elijio]

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Muaddib

Part of one of the towers that fell down took almost half of a part of the bottom of wtc7, plus there was burning debris and fuel which was blown by the explosions and the collapse into wtc7....

Please do some research before making up stories....

[edit on 14-11-2005 by Muaddib]

could you please present evidence of these claims?

i never heard anything about half of the bottom of WTC7 being taken out

please verify these claims with relevant photographs or other reasonable evidence

and No; someones 3 paragraphs opinion is Not evidence

and No; you cannot legitimately tell me "Do Your Research"
You must supply me with a hint ok?
i Have no clue what your talking about and i would like to know

Please provide links, lest you lose any remaining credibility you may have
Thank You

Originally posted by Muaddib

Perhaps that "physics professor" should have talked to structural engineers instead of making an idiot of himself by speculating without the facts.

I am not the ultimate expert in structural engineering, but there are a few facts I know which this "physics professor" should have checked before making such bold and unnacurate claims.

How can you say this man is Not Qualified to have a legitimate opinion on this subject

THEN you state "I am not the ultimate expert..."
Yet For Some reason you dive right into spouting off the same type of pseudo-facts *without the presence of reasonable evidence to support your case* of which you were criticizing in the first place

Are you a Qualified Structural Engineer for High Rise Buildings or Not?
If so, May we see your credentials?

I have a feeling you are not a qualified Structural engineer either; because you do not present your case in a professional manner

So, my question is; Isnt it a bit hypocritical to bash a physicist for not being qualified enough to make a judgement; then you admit you are not qualified enough either; But...You act like you know the absolute truth

In the case of 911, there is NO truth !

The govt isnt showing us any of the evidence!

So basically you have made as big a fool of yourself; as you claim the physicist made of himself, due to the fact you potentially did the exact same thing as the person you are criticizing

Since Neither you or the professor are qualified in making professional assessments of the situation under discussion; I think the only choice i have to get any reasonable opinion is to review the assessments of professionals; and there is a huge lack of professionals who are willing to get involved in this case; for obvious reasons.

If you claim to be a certified Structural Engineer specializing in High Rise Buildings; you will be givin no credit until you present your credentials as Evidence to back up your claims.
That means we need to know where u went to school so that we may verify that you indeed did receive a degree in this profession.

I believe you need to be put on the spot here; because you are suggesting that more than half of the population on this forum are "idiots".

This is easy lol.
Muaddib "In case you haven't noticed skyscrappers are not trees..."
Muaddib "It would be like building a small scale skyscrapper from dominoe pieces. "

Ok so your professional structural engineering analysis is that Skyscrappers are Not trees; but they are more like Dominoes?

LoL This is becoming very funny actually....

"If you hit it at it's top, or center, you will see that the pieces will fall pretty much straight down."

No one was argueing about which direction gravity pulls; but i have a feeling you think the arguement may be about that.

I apoligize for having to come after you; but you have no mercy on any posters in this forum of whom you disagree with; so why should i take any mercy when i tear your words apart and use them agianst you?

If you wanna keep treating concerned citizens like "idiots" than I will prove you to be the idiot. Thank you.

Dont forget; we are waiting to see your credentials, since you obviously claim to be more qualified than the physicist.
Lets see em.

This is on Topic; i believe; because the poster claimed to have a better education than the Physics professor in reguards to the "physics behind structural engineering"

I am not taking sides; I do not agree with the physics professor nor do i agree with anyone else. I am Undecided. I have gone back and forth enough to realize we need the Govt to release their information before we can make accurate assessments of this particular situation.

But if someone "claims" to be more formally educated in the specifics of a particular field of science; I would like to see evidence of that.
Im not asking very much; because if the particular poster is indeed a certified structural engineer i will heed their professional opinion.

I just want to get to the bottom of this.
Thank You.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 09:35 PM
This has been covered in so many threads. The fact his there has been no credible evidence that can prove there were any "planted explosions". Until I see real proof. I will not believe just because I want to believe for political reasons. I read that story about the supposed "UL" report and it didn't look like a UL report at all. As a matter of fact, the news story was about a convention of conspiracy theorists and anti Bush folks:

Now look at this quote. He gives no technical reason or data. Heck he works at an Environmental Health Laboratory, a "division" of UL. How does that make him a "expert in such matters". That is the biggest credibility stretch I have ever seen. The story implies that some other division of UL did some testing. That's like someone in the UL taste testing division commenting on structural design and materials.
This "physics professor" is the same way. Is he a civil engineer? Does he have a background in steel structural stress analysis? Was he privy to all the data? He might as well be a home economics professor saying the building were blown up. Oh but since he is a "professor" he must be right.
Some of the most politically biased and ignorant people I have ever known were my college professors.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 09:53 PM
Ok, can I just say that whether or not it was Al-Qaeda (as I believe) or some secret government plot, there were a few goals: 1. the symbolic effect of hitting the WTC; 2. causing as much impact as possible.

Goal 1 was accomplished.
Goal 2 (and with all respect to the thousands who died) could have been accomplished better.

What I'm trying to say is that if it was really "bombs in the basement" wouldn't they have tried to make the buildings fall sideways? Take out more buildings and people? The fact they fell down straight does NOT prove the "bombs in the basement" theory at all, in fact I think it more proves that it was simply caused by the attack of the aircraft.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 10:21 PM
Whoever did it didn't want to take out the buildings around such as hilton hotel, (i think) they only wanted to destroy the WTC complex and about the bombs in the basement bit LOL In controlled demolitions the bombs are located at strategic points on the building such as every floor and they're remotely detonated floor by floor so the building falls down with minimal damage to surrounding buildings IT would look just like how the towers and wtc7 fell down.(straight down)

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Apoc
Until I see real proof. I will not believe just because I want to believe for political reasons.

This "physics professor" is the same way. Is he a civil engineer? Does he have a background in steel structural stress analysis? Was he privy to all the data?

civil engineer? LOL. "physics professor"? your credibility just went molten and can now be located in the sublevels.
he is a physics professor, so quotes will no longer be needed.
however, the world of information is not a honeycomb. it is a fluid. one discipline bleeds into another. salient causes are sometimes found in unexpected places.
like spock, i like logic.
i like fuzzy logic even better.
he said in the paper(which none of the attackers ever seem to read, lol), that he was not privy to all the data.

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:38 AM
Please also note people that the WTC buildings could with stand like 3000 degrees fires and the ones that were burning were like 1500 degrees farenheight. That doesn't make sense. Assesment of WTC and Pentagon terroist attacks

That is a link my friends. All your questions will be answered. Defintely a Conspiracy. No, seriously. Especialy the Pentagon one. That one was weird.

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:03 AM

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Attero Auctorita]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:10 AM
this tidbit of my 2 cents is a reply to billybob and mauddib's views on the time taken for buildings to fall and whether explosives would make a difference or not; here ya go fellas;

If you have 2 buildings, one explodes, the other has fire and non destructed floors, the one with the explosions would fall faster. The building with the explosives would be a solid force falling through dust at most. If controlled demolition, it would look just as it appeared, falling into its own "footprint".

(if)The building with the fire could have had floors start to come down, each undamaged and partially damaged floor would also act like a resistance. Depending on where the initial collapse takes place, the building with one side on fire (if the fire were possibly to melt the steel) would also fall on an angle.

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:32 AM

Originally posted by 4V4T4R

It was explained in the original article that there likely weren't any explosions due to fuel.

BTW....I never said that wtc7 exploded, read my response please... I clearly said that wtc7 was hit by large mass of debris from the twin towers and fuel and burning debris was thrown inside wtc7. That's what made wtc7 collapse. The explosions came from tower 1 and 2, and when they exploded they sent burning fuel, burning debris and other debris into wtc7.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Muaddib
The explosions came from tower 1 and 2, and when they exploded they sent burning fuel, burning debris and other debris into wtc7.

"Explosions" from WTC1 & 2? "When they exploded"?

And I thought they collapsed from fire...

[edit on 2005-11-15 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas

Well if you had read my earlier post that FEMA initially said that WTC7 was not damaged or there did not seem to be enough damage caused by the collapse of either WTC1 or WTC2 for there to a complete collapse of WTC7.

WTC 7 Collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20pm. There were no known casualities due to this collapse. The performance of WTC7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings


[edit on 14/11/05 by Hunting Veritas]

Where did I say that wtyc7 collapsed only because of the damage done by the collapse of tower1 and 2?....

Read my responses again........

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:52 AM

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Another WTC designer stating the building could have taken multiple hits.
Frank A. DeMartini - Construction and Project Management

So who wants to talk about WTC7?

Did any of the two towers fell just because of the plane crashes alone?..... NO...... Let's keep talking about wtc7 then......

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:54 AM

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

"Explosions" from WTC1 & 2? "When they exploded"?

And I thought they collapsed from fire...

wcip.....didn't the planes exploded in the twin towers when they crashed against them?.... Didn't those "explosions" send debris, burning debris and burning fuel into wtc7 and other buildings?..... YES THEY DID....

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:58 AM

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
"Almost half of a part of the bottom..." How much is that exactly? I like more than half of you not half as much as you'd like, and I like less than half of you not half as much as you deserve. Look at the photo again.

[edit on 2005-11-14 by wecomeinpeace] about, I don't give a crap whether you like me or not, and you should be staying on topic instead of trying to pick fights....

i am not here to agree with you, or with anyone else, on everything just so you can like me..... I am here to discuss and find the truth behind topics.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:05 AM

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I'm pretty sure the image you are referring to is this one, Muadibb.

There was similar damage done to many of the buildings around the towers, and the ones closest to them were virtually destroyed, yet did not collapse. That little bite out of the edge of WTC7 is pathetic when considering how modern steel buildings are constructed.

Ooooh, I now you are trying to proclaim "it was a little bite" when before you claim nothing much happened to wtc7.....wonder why the sudden change....

Anyways, you actually think that you can see the extent of the damage from that angle?..... You can't say it was "a little bite" when you are not seeing pictures of the entire area that was hit.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in