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: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Interesting debate you are having here, however I would like to raise a few points…

The World Trade Centre 10 and 11 were hit on a direct surface, neither of the two towers were hit at the corner of them. The reason I raise this, is because as far as I was aware buildings were built to withstand the loss of one wall without ‘collapsing’ encase of an event where this could happen. Now, due to the fact none of the corners were damaged this does raise some questions in my .. The reason it does this is because we see them ‘claim’ that ‘fire’ was able to weaken the structure when the four main supports were not damaged.

Now if the fire is spaced of 10 floors, it is going to be the three main floors [in the middle] which see the worst level of fire and the most damage caused to the supports. However the majority [if not half] of the supports were not damaged upon impact. The foam that is around them can’t have been removed from all of these floors by a plane impacting into it and with images of people on these floors being televised they can’t have been that hot either…otherwise how did they manage to walk to the windows?

I can go on all day asking questions on it, which the Government won’t answer however if you watch the videos back [over and over] you’ll see for yourself the problems with the ‘fire’ scenario…




posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Professor Stevens Jones' work is credible and worthy of merit.
He simply advocates a serious, fair investigation into the hypothesis that WTC7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the carefully planned use of explosives.

No harm, no foul, IMHO.
Though I do not entirely agree with Dr. Jones' hypothesis, should it entirely be dismissed as nonsense? What harm is there in having a fair and serious investigation into such a hypothesis? Even Dr. Jones' expresses his limits to what is credible and what is not.



At the same time, I acknowledge that other notions have sprung up in the near vacuum of official consideration of this very plausible hypothesis. These notions must be subjected to careful scrutiny. I by no means endorse all such ideas. For example, the video “In Plane Site” promotes the theory that a “pod” holds a missile under the wing of the 757 which hit WTC 2 (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). Careful inspection of the undercarriage of a standard 757 leads to the explanation that the so-called “pod” was merely a reflection from the bulged undercarriage (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). I find that the “pod theory” is very weak and distracts from central issues.

Again, there is a notion that something other than Boeing jetliners hit the WTC Towers (see Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). Scrutiny of photographs and videos provides compelling evidence that jets did in fact hit these buildings (Hoffman, 2005; Chertoff, 2005). A March 2005 article in Popular Mechanics focuses on poorly-supported claims and proceeds to ridicule the whole “9-11 truth movement” (Chertoff, 2005). Serious replies to this article have already been written (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005; serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm).

Those espousing weak or untestable claims should realize that they may be damaging the effort to achieve a rational debate of important issues by poisoning the process with “junk science”. Likewise, the notion that the “explosive demolition” hypothesis should not be debated since it would imply a “conspiracy theory” departs from good science as well as from numerous historical precedents of empirical conspiracies (Jones, 2005). Scientific inquiry is not or should not be dictated by politics (Mooney, 2005).

DRAFT: Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

Again, though I have a tendency to disagree or not agree with Dr. Jones' hypothesis, from an objective standpoint, such an scientific investigation or inquiry should be willingly considered. In doing a fair and serious investigation, perhaps then, it will put to rest the multiples of absurd theories continually and steadily circulating around the internet since these tragic events happened. Like separating the chaff from the wheat once and for all, so to speak.





seekerof

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Mauddib....let me ask you this.
.............
Now, a skyscraper IS a rigid structure when falling from the top...i.e. all the pieces (floors) on the very top are still intact and "together". The floors directly above the fire are the floors that collapsed leaving the very top floors intact (rigid). As shown in the pictures posted by someone of WTC2.....the top did start to topple over...i.e. like a tree would.


That happened because the redundant structure of the towers began to fail to support their weight on the spot where the planes hit the towers, and where the fires began and were spread the most. At that point the top floors did not lose their structural integrity yet, and still were supporting their own weight, but when that section of the top of the towers began to fall, it produced a domino effect which made every floor buckle under the sudden added weight from the falling floors.



Originally posted by MacMerdin
The only thing that could have stopped this toppling effect would have been the total destruction of every piece of column beneath the toppling floor.
Why every single piece of column? Because if a single piece of column is left, you would get resistance and therefore an even greater angular moment resulting in more toppling. So, in conclusion, the semetrical effect of the towers demise can only be explained by the total destruction of the buildings columns beneath the already falling debris. But, the offical version is that the floors above pancaked the floors below....which could have happened but would not be a symetrical fall.


That is not true Macmerdin...we can see from every link I provided and by the word of several structural engineers that what you are claiming is false... and it tells me that you must not be what you claim to be...

Let's see again what a "real structural engineer" has to say about it.


A professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Eagar went on to write an influential paper in the journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society entitled "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" (JOM, December 2001). In this interview, Eagar explains the structural failure, what can be done within existing skyscrapers to improve safety, and what he believes the most likely terrorist targets of the future may be.

............................
NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.


Excerpted from.
www.pbs.org...


If enough columns are damaged for the redundant structure to fail to support the weight from the top floors, the rest of the columns will buckle, and cause a domino effect because of the added weight from the top floors suddenly falling on top of the floors below; hence, every floor under the collapsing mass of debris, will buckle under the increase weight until there is enough resistance to stop the total weight from the falling mass of debris.



Originally posted by MacMerdin
As far as the WTC7 building...as stated above...the only cause that makes any kind of sense structural engineering (physics) wise is that it was a controlled demolition.


That's not true Macmerdin.... and as we can see by every link and excerpt i provided, several structural engineers disagree with your statements....



[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
well thats big of you seekerof. you're willing to allow a real investigation. thanks.

WCIP, you should just have that entire last post ready for everytime the skeptical noob comes around flaunting ignorance, and kablow; theys instantly learned.

ive never done the WATS thing, but that post had to take some real time and effort. disregarding the research involved, just planting all those photos.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost
well thats big of you seekerof. you're willing to allow a real investigation. thanks.

WCIP, you should just have that entire last post ready for everytime the skeptical noob comes around flaunting ignorance, and kablow; theys instantly learned.

ive never done the WATS thing, but that post had to take some real time and effort. disregarding the research involved, just planting all those photos.


Riiight...so every joe and Jane can make educated conclusions just by watching pictures of smaller buildings falling on their sides...


Hey...why bother with college when every person in the world, including those that do not have specific degrees or any degrees at all, can make educated conclusions on any field of science?....

I wonder why I wasted time with college? It is not like, if I make a mistake at work interpreting the data, several people, included myself would die if I don't know what the data from my mwd tools is telling me..... oh wait...yes we can all die.... hummm...do you think structural engineers have to know much to be able to learn how to build a safe structure for people to live on or work on?....

---edited to add comments----


[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkmind

Originally posted by billybob
the famous murals at the denver international airport perfectly illustrate the whole plan.


Riiiggghhhttt... So they revealed their plans in a mural in a public place?


yes. it's called "the open conspiracy" as described in 'fiction' by illuminati think tank man, h.g. wells. everything is done right in our faces.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
structural engineering and nuclear engineering are different branches of science....in case you dind't know.... structural engineers do have to know about the physics behind structures, but a physicist doesn't have to know, and most of them do not know, anything about structural engineering.


I didn't know there was a branch of science (or engineering) called nuclear engineering, I guess you learn something new every day. I'll have to ask my friends who are physics majors more about that.

[edit] - I found something on college board:

"Nuclear engineering majors study radioactive materials and radiation and learn how to use them in areas such as power, nuclear medicine, and industry."


Try to find a nuclear physicist that knows how to build skyscrappers and knows the physics behind structural engineering, and who has not studied this particular branch of science (structural engineering) but only knows nuclear physics.


Try to find any nuclear physicist that only knows nuclear physics. You won't find any, because before you start learning nuclear physics you have to start with physics 101.


The article does not mention at all that this physics professor has a degree in any of the branches of engineering, so it is safe to assume that he doesn't have any experience or knowledge on any branch of engineering and much less in stgructural engineering or civil engineering.


No, it's not safe to assume that, and even if it was what you're saying is ad hominem.

Attack the argument, not the person making it.


Yet he is free to speculate and just because he is a nuclear physicist he must be right?....


Just because he's a nuclear physicist doesn't mean he's wrong either.


[edit on 15-11-2005 by ShakyaHeir]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   
You want to know about nuclear engineering?

Here is a link.

www.nuc.berkeley.edu...

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by billybob

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.


Perhaps you don't understand that the credibility of the person that was lost by their statements is yours and anyone else who claims that a physicist of nuclear fusion has to know about structural engineering.....

No wonder you can't understand that there is a difference between nuclear physics and the branches of engineering....

Yet he is free to speculate and just because he is a nuclear physicist he must be right?....


it is mostly the physics of motion and heat conservation that are relevent. even you had to take newtonian physics. fail, perhaps? skinny by?
you keep guessing what everybody is 'qualified' to know. knowledge knows itself. you tick me off with your literal mind. you have no idea how to understand analogy or metaphor, or how to read between the lines. my boat anaology is fine, as it describes the transfer of weight in motion.
should i go find YOUR quote about the importance of quantum mechanics with reagards to the towers. you tell everyone else what they do or don't understand, yet you repeatedly show a near complete misunderstanding of the application of simple newtonian laws, and why they, more than the knowledge of structural engineering, are relevent to understanding and being able to PREDICT how a building, or other object IN MOTION should behave.

wecomeinpeace, another ats grammy award for you, from me. throw it on the mantlepiece with the other hundreds of them.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   

That happened because the redundant structure of the towers began to fail to support their weight on the spot where the planes hit the towers, and where the fires began and were spread the most. At that point the top floors did not lose their structural integrity yet, and still were supporting their own weight, but when that section of the top of the towers began to fall, it produced a domino effect which made every floor buckle under the sudden added weight from the falling floors.



Yes, but if it is already in a moment effect it will stay in a moment effect unless something stops the moment. The portion of the floor that hits first will hit the floor below it and THAT floor will also start to fall in an asymetrical way...i.e....the side that is being smashed first will crumble first and the side that smashes last will smash last and so on and so forth....unless the structural integrity of the floors below the "mass" happens at the same time....then the toppling floors would have nothing to topple against and fall straight down.


That is not true Macmerdin...we can see from every link I provided and by the word of several structural engineers that what you are claiming is false... and it tells me that you must not be what you claim to be...

Let's see again what a "real structural engineer" has to say about it



A professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Eagar went on to write an influential paper in the journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society entitled "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" (JOM, December 2001). In this interview, Eagar explains the structural failure, what can be done within existing skyscrapers to improve safety, and what he believes the most likely terrorist targets of the future may be.

............................
NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.


Excerpted from.
www.pbs.org...



If enough columns are damaged for the redundant structure to fail to support the weight from the top floors, the rest of the columns will buckle, and cause a domino effect because of the added weight from the top floors suddenly falling on top of the floors below; hence, every floor under the collapsing mass of debris, will buckle under the increase weight until there is enough resistance to stop the total weight from the falling mass of debris.


Here in lies what you are not getting the point of. I never said that the whole structure would fall over like a tree. All I'm saying is that a rigid structure falling at an angle hitting floors below it would....that rigid structure would essentially want to spiral in on itself....due to the increase in angular moment. This did not happen.....it suddenly went from toppling to falling straight. This only happens if the angular moment is broken somehow.



That's not true Macmerdin.... and as we can see by every link and excerpt i provided, real engineers disagree with your statements....


What's not true....that WTC7 fell down exactly like a text book controlled implosion? I may have missed a quote but I didn't see where your "real" structural engineers talk about WTC7.

As far as my credibility...why not U2U me and I'll tell you my name. I graduated from West Virginia University with a BS in Civil Engineering. If you want I could fax you my resume so you could see for yourself if I'm credible to talk about structural engineering physics.

Although I have to digress......I do not design skyscraper buildings. That is not as important as knowing the physics behind certain things and how the world works....i.e. specifically materials. I am in no way saying that I am the end all knowledgable source but all I'm saying is I have a background in structural engineering, materials concepts, and most importantly static, dynamic and angular physics.

[edit on 15-11-2005 by MacMerdin]

[edit on 15-11-2005 by MacMerdin]

[edit on 15-11-2005 by MacMerdin]

[edit on 15-11-2005 by MacMerdin]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir[/i

Just because he's a nuclear physicist doesn't mean he's wrong either.
[edit on 15-11-2005 by ShakyaHeir]


Oh I see....so if he doesn't have any knowledge on structural engineering that makes him right?....

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Source
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
Graduated from Bellevue High School, Bellevue, Washington, with 4.0 scholastic average (A=4.0) in 1967.

B.S. in Physics, Mathematics minor, magna cum laude with honors, from Brigham Young University in 1973, retaining Presidential (David O. McKay) Scholarship.

Ph.D. in Physics, Mathematics/Electronics minors from Vanderbilt University in 1978, retaining full Tuition Scholarship and Research Fellowship (1973-1978).

Ph.D. research conducted at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (1974-1977); course work completed at Stanford University.

Post-doctoral research conducted at Cornell University (CESR) and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.

Conducted research at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, EG & G Idaho, Idaho Falls, 1979-1985 (Senior Engineering Specialist).

Principal Investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion 1982-1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects.

Spokesman for LAMPF Experiment #727 and co-spokesman for LAMPF Experiments #963 and #1151 (1982 - 1993).

Collaborator in several other experiments, including experiments at TRIUMF (Vancouver, Canada), The National High Energy Laboratory, KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory (Oxford, U.K.), and Kamioka, Japan.

Associate Director, Brigham Young University Center for Fusion Studies, 1989-1994

Search for fusion in condensed matter and deuterium, research for U.S. Department of Energy (May 1986 - December 1991) and for the Electric Power Research Institute (April 1990-June 1993).



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Source
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
Graduated from Bellevue High School, Bellevue, Washington, with 4.0 scholastic average (A=4.0) in 1967.

B.S. in Physics, Mathematics minor, magna cum laude with honors, from Brigham Young University in 1973, retaining Presidential (David O. McKay) Scholarship.

Ph.D. in Physics, Mathematics/Electronics minors from Vanderbilt University in 1978, retaining full Tuition Scholarship and Research Fellowship (1973-1978).

Ph.D. research conducted at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (1974-1977); course work completed at Stanford University.

Post-doctoral research conducted at Cornell University (CESR) and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.

Conducted research at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, EG & G Idaho, Idaho Falls, 1979-1985 (Senior Engineering Specialist).

Principal Investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion 1982-1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects.

Spokesman for LAMPF Experiment #727 and co-spokesman for LAMPF Experiments #963 and #1151 (1982 - 1993).

Collaborator in several other experiments, including experiments at TRIUMF (Vancouver, Canada), The National High Energy Laboratory, KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory (Oxford, U.K.), and Kamioka, Japan.

Associate Director, Brigham Young University Center for Fusion Studies, 1989-1994

Search for fusion in condensed matter and deuterium, research for U.S. Department of Energy (May 1986 - December 1991) and for the Electric Power Research Institute (April 1990-June 1993).


All that the above proves is that this physics professor is an expert in nuclear engineering, not in structural engineering, or an expert of materials used in structural engineering.


Thomas Waddy Eagar

Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems

Dr. Eagar holds an Sc.D. from MIT. He believes that improvements in the reliability of fabricated materials require a better understanding of the physics and the chemistry of the processes that are used.

Although most of Dr. Eagar's research involves welding and joining, an increasing amount of work involves other aspects of materials manufacturing and engineering systems such as product design and development; alternate manufacturing processes; manufacturing management; materials systems analysis; selection of materials and failure analysis.

Examples of Dr. Eagar’s recent research include:

Fundamentals of transient liquid phase diffusion bonding as applied to composites, superalloys and electronic packaging
Control of melting during gas metal arc welding
Effects of welding fume on health of workers
Stresses generated during joining of dissimilar materials
Improved methods of dimensional analysis of materials
processing
Design, forming and assembly of automotive body components
Methods for successful product design and development.
Dr. Eagar has published extensively.


Excerpted from.
esd.mit.edu...


Thomas W. Eagar, NAE, is the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Prior professional assignments at MIT included . of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, director of the Materials Processing Center and co-director of the Leaders for Manufacturing Program. Professor Eagar has served on various technical committees for U.S. governmental departments and agencies, and has held numerous positions in many professional associations. Professor Eagar?s numerous awards include Nelson W. Taylor Lecturer, Pennsylvania State University (1995); William Irrgang Award, American Welding Society (1993); Henry Marion Howe Medal, ASM International (1992); and Comfort A. Adams Lecturer, American Welding Society. Thomas Eagar holds Fellowships in the American Welding Society and the American Society for Metals International, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and has served on many NRC panels and committees. Professor Eagar is the author or co-author of over 175 publications in national and international journals and the co-inventor of 13 U.S. Patents including 3 additional U.S. Patents Pending.


Excerpted from.
www4.nas.edu...




[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   
MacMerdin, could you please fix your posts so i can distinguish what you are saying?



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

No harm, no foul, IMHO.
Though I do not entirely agree with Dr. Jones' hypothesis, should it entirely be dismissed as nonsense? What harm is there in having a fair and serious investigation into such a hypothesis? Even Dr. Jones' expresses his limits to what is credible and what is not.
...........


No harm in doing more serious investigations, do you think there haven't been enough investigations done?

What I find harmful is believing that because a nuclear physicist makes claims about the wtc collapse, that it is taken as gospel and many people believe he must be right, when in fact structural engineers disagree with the conclusions of Dr Jones.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
it is mostly the physics of motion and heat conservation that are relevent. even you had to take newtonian physics. fail, perhaps? skinny by?
you keep guessing what everybody is 'qualified' to know. knowledge knows itself. you tick me off with your literal mind. you have no idea how to understand analogy or metaphor, or how to read between the lines. my boat anaology is fine, as it describes the transfer of weight in motion.
should i go find YOUR quote about the importance of quantum mechanics with reagards to the towers. you tell everyone else what they do or don't understand, yet you repeatedly show a near complete misunderstanding of the application of simple newtonian laws, and why they, more than the knowledge of structural engineering, are relevent to understanding and being able to PREDICT how a building, or other object IN MOTION should behave.

wecomeinpeace, another ats grammy award for you, from me. throw it on the mantlepiece with the other hundreds of them.


Yep...as has been said by several people before, now including yourself, anyone with knowledge on high school physics must know structural engineering and how buildings should "behave".....like buildings have to behave a certain way when collapsing without taking into consideration that there are many variables that can change how a building collapses and why....

As I said....why bother with getting specific degrees when anyone and everyone knows exactly what's going on on every branch of science, even if they only have a high school degree?

BTW, since when giving away wats awards makes a person knowledgable about a topic, when anyone and everyone can just give these awards based on preconcieved ideas on any topic?.....


[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base.



Originally posted by MacMerdin
Here in lies what you are not getting the point of. I never said that the whole structure would fall over like a tree.


Reread this a time or two, Muaddib. The claim that those buildings could not have possibly tilted (though only suggested and not stated outright) is the biggest line of crap I've ever heard/read/whatever, religion aside. Your sources are not saying a tilt was impossible; and the buildings did tilt - which is proof positive that what you are suggesting is wrong.

What you are misconstruing as a counter to the angular momentum problem is someone saying that it wouldn't be possible for the towers to fall over in the exact same manner timber does, or a glass of water: "tipping over," as in, completely falling to one side. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the momentum behind that tilt of the caps of the buildings - that plainly observable and definitely existant tilt - suddenly disappearing for no apparent reason.

Btw, MacMerdin, thanks for clarifying something for me. I was under the impression that the columns in the caps of the buildings, above the fulcrum, must have been the columns destroyed. But now that you've brought it up (and I probably should've seen this before), that the momentum disappeared because of the floors below the fulcrum being destroyed makes more sense. Though I suppose either would work, it would make more sense for the floors below to have been destroyed, as the momentum disappeared right as the ejection of materials began around the fulcrum, and there was no visible damage to the caps from explosions until further into the collapses.

Thanks again for your contribution here.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
No harm in doing more serious investigations, do you think there haven't been enough investigations done?

What I find harmful is believing that because a nuclear physicist makes claims about the wtc collapse, that it is taken as gospel and many people believe he must be right, when in fact structural engineers disagree with the conclusions of Dr Jones.


Not government runned investigations actual private investigations that the government did not allow.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Reread this a time or two, Muaddib. The claim that those buildings could not have possibly tilted (though only suggested and not stated outright) is the biggest line of crap I've ever heard/read/whatever, religion aside. Your sources are not saying a tilt was impossible; and the buildings did tilt - which is proof positive that what you are suggesting is wrong.


Did you read what I have posted?... i never said the top portion of the building did not tilt....


NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.


Excerpted from.
www.pbs.org...



Originally posted by bsbray11
What you are misconstruing as a counter to the angular momentum problem is someone saying that it wouldn't be possible for the towers to fall over in the exact same manner timber does, or a glass of water: "tipping over," as in, completely falling to one side. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the momentum behind that tilt of the caps of the buildings - that plainly observable and definitely existant tilt - suddenly disappearing for no apparent reason.


As i said, read again my responses...


[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib



NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.


Excerpted from.
www.pbs.org...



[edit on 15-11-2005 by Muaddib]


This quote from this engineer has NOTHING to do with the cap tilt. What this engineer is saying is that it's virtually impossible for the tower to tilt at the BASE. Which i agree wholeheartedly with.

Now give me a quote from an engineer explaining the sudden lose of moment that the cap underwent and i'll start believing. I'm actually asking for more info as I've not done an indepth structural analysis as these other engineers have. Thanks in advance if you can provide that info.

editted to add: I fixed my messed up thread.
edit: poor spelling
[edit on 15-11-2005 by MacMerdin]


[edit on 15-11-2005 by MacMerdin]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join