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.

 

Full Video: Explosions Before Both WTC Collapses and before WTC7 Collapse - You Will Believe

page: 27
1
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
So we're back with the pancaking theory aren't we..
Anyone who has seen the video's of the towers collapsing with a pancake theory in mind will notice this is IMPOSSIBLE, unless the inner floors fell at supersonic speeds maybe.

Why? Because it is obvious that the difference in floors between the bursts of smoke are FAR too big for any pancake theory, even without resistance! But wait, there was resistance according to you, so what gives? If the floors inside the building fall slower because of resistance, than how come we see the bursts of smoke far below the debris falling outside the tower with nothing but air-resistance?

Face it, you just don't WANT to see it.

Here's one (bad) example of how that pancake theory is impossible

italy.indymedia.org...

On the side facing the camera you'll notice a white puff of smoke at 4 seconds, within that same second, but now xx stories lower, you see another one, impressive speed.

But! See that dark line inbetween the 2 puffs? Shouldn't those 2 parts of the tower be hermetically sealed off from eachother?

I'm glad your "theory" is still as sound as last year. Keep at it!




posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
If folks want to get technical about it, there it is.

A Fun Experiment For The Practical Home Physicist

As for all this hullabaloo about debris being ejected sideways from the towers, I'm not seeing much attention being paid to the fact that hundreds of floors of buildings collapsing can cause a great deal of compression of the air inside the structure. The expulsion of this air as the building “pancakes” readily explains why debris was ejected laterally during the collapse of the towers.


No,
..

If you really want to get technical, that point is in regards to the amount of debris falling downwards so as to apply force to continue the collapse.

That has *nothing* to do with an argument that the debris was being ejected by explosives, although that would be the obvious culprit. Either you didn't understand what you were addressing or you were presenting a strawman.

At any rate, if you want to be condescending in your posts, it would have a greater effect if you had some idea as to what you were addressing.

I understand not appreciating the insults, but I'm pretty sure I've been the only one bringing up this point in particular, and I'm not aware of any insults I've been throwing out recently. And yet you seem to have sent a lot of unnecessary remarks my way, along with the straw man. ;(



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
This may help you understand, an account from a survivor in the WTC. The various stairwells, ducts, etc acted like channels for the air until it found an exit:


It has been repeatedly shown that this would have been all but physically impossible, and yet this article serves to somehow make the argument immune from facts.

PROVE that that same force could have been responsible for the explosions coming out of the side of the building! For all you know, they could've been caused by explosives within the building, which I think they were.

And it would make more sense that the gust was caused by high explosives detonations, because:

A) The WTC were not airtight. By far. They were being freaking blown up floor by floor. If solid debris was exiting the building on all sides then you can imagine that all gases would be too.


B) The amount of air pressure required to blast concrete dust out over 100 feet into air would have been great, and so far no one has offered any evidence that a few compressed floors' worth of air could have built such pressure so early into collapse, as in the case with a few of those squibs.

C) The debris being ejected, some have suggested, came from the collapse regions. Then how would that dust have traveled down the towers faster than the collapse itself, and from where exactly did it exit? For all others: whence came the dust debris? And what exactly was it, do you think? Because to me it looks a lot like the concrete/gypsum mix that powdered Manhattan that day, and made it look like it'd been hit by a dirty snow.

D) The air shafts were in the core structure, whereas the squibs obviously come out of exterior columns. This suggests the air would bolt across floors of air without decompressing, which would have prevented such violent bursts out of the building.

Someone should watch a video, determine the speed for the squibs coming out of the buildings, and then determine how much pressure it would require to do that. And then determine how much pressure could have POSSIBLY accumulated from the max number of floors compressed before the first, and most massive, squibs rocked out of the buildings.

Makes absolutely no sense. And yet this one little article makes up for it! Right?

Well, high explosives do what you seem to think those towers did by themselves.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Excellent the truth is coming out!!

I just hope that all those thousands of people that are going to die from asbestosis don't die in vain.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I tried to get this posted sooner sorry for the delay. My apologies for the interuption.

Majic you're almost there.


Gravity is a force which can cause a body to accelerate. Objects which fall to earth accelerate (i.e., their velocity increases) until they reach a terminal velocity, which is not the same as the "speed of gravity". The terminal velocity of different objects in a non-vacuum is different, as in the example of a feather versus a lead weight.

According to Einstein, the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light. While I can't say I know exactly how fast the WTC debris was falling, it seems to be falling slower than 186,282.397 miles per second in the video, so I doubt any of it was actually falling at the "speed of gravity".


Allow me to elucidate. Yes gravity is a force just as magnetism, but when Einstein was refering to it in his General Relativity and Special Relativity he was using the term gravitation not gravity as Newton and Galileo meant. His intent was that gravity could be measured in waves just like light. He was using gravity in a cosmological manner not to describe the way it affects falling objects. But first you need this-

www.answers.com...

the speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 m/s (670,616,629 mph)


Light speed is usually used as a reference to distance(ie lightyear) not time. It takes 8.3 minutes for light to reach us from the sun.

Notice here
www.ldolphin.org...

gravity, in contrast to light, has no detectable aberration or propagation delay for its action, even for cases (such as binary pulsars) where sources of gravity accelerate significantly during the light time from source to target. By contrast, the finite propagation speed of light causes radiation pressure forces to have a non-radial component causing orbits to decay (the ÒPoynting-Robertson effectÓ); but gravity has no counterpart force proportional to to first order. General relativity (GR) explains these features by suggesting that gravitation (unlike electromagnetic forces) is a pure geometric effect of curved space-time, not a force of nature that propagates. Gravitational radiation, which surely does propagate at lightspeed but is a fifth order effect in , is too small to play a role in explaining this difference in behavior between gravity and ordinary forces of nature.


www.metaresearch.org...

In math, one can associate a mathematical symbol with a physical concept, then manipulate symbols and derive new information about the concept. But in physics, definitions must connect concepts to observations or experiments. For gravitation, this difference of approach has led to two different interpretations of GR: the "field" interpretation with forces and motions through 3-space; and the 4-dimensional "geometric" interpretation in which "gravity is just geometry" without need of forces as such.



The statement that "the speed of gravity equals the speed of light" is manifestly false, and is heard often only because of the confusion with the propagation speed of gravitational waves.



Moreover, no serious claim of experimental support for gravity propagating at lightspeed has been advanced in modern times.

Notice the difference?
A couple more sources.
www.astro.queensu.ca...
math.ucr.edu...

I think the relevant physics that apply here are indeed gravity but in the Newtonian sense(ie the apple to the head). And I think it's more easily explained through Galileo's Law of Falling Bodies:
the law of constant acceleration of free-falling bodies. Which is where your terminal velocity comes in. Or spelled out better here
hsci.cas.ou.edu...

Another way of looking at this is to say that the distances traveled by a falling body increase as the square of the times, or D is proportional to T squared. This is the basis of Galileo’s law of falling bodies.

And they include graphs.
Or here where the equations are simplified.
hss.fullerton.edu...
This explains the weight issue(ie rock vs feather)
physics.ucr.edu...

the speed of a falling body is independent of its weight
objects being affected by gravity (and starting with the same speed) will have the same speed at all times

Here's a nice demo if you have the time
demoroom.physics.ncsu.edu...
30 min. film demo

Something else to consider is The Law of Inertia: objects do not change their state of rest or motion unless acted upon.
muse.tau.ac.il...

A body will preserve its velocity and direction so long as no force in its motion's direction acts on it.

scienceworld.wolfram.com...

The "speed of gravity" has nothing to do with a falling building.
So did the towers fall at the speed of light? Nope.
Did they fall at the speed of gravity? Nope.

My guess is they fell at terminal velocity what ever that may be once you factor in inertia, mass and gravity.
I'll leave that to better minds than me.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

I also wonder if the lone cameraman had someone helping him, because from what I can remember the camera zooms in and pans when following one of the choppers. Then in his remarks he says he was watching it wthrough binoculars. If I havn't got confused here then that is truly an amazing feat, being able to watch it through binoculars while operating the video camera. I'll have to watch again to double check though, what I thought may have been zooming in and panning might be what they did in the editing stage, so I have to check.

[edit on 12-12-2005 by AgentSmith]


Agent, the camera most likely had a "zoom" button...as do most digital recording camcorders these days.

I'm guessing the lone cameraman would be using his binoculars every so often, and then going back to the camcorder to press the "zoom" button when neccessary. (They also have a large LCD screen attached to them)



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Smackdown


Originally posted by JKersteJr
Watch the first video in Wecomeinpeace's last post, pause it at 2 secs through, explain to me how that plume of smoke/debris/gas/air whatever, is being expelled 20-30 stories BELOW where the building is pancaking? The same thing can be seen in the second video at about 3 seconds in.

If you strike downward on a structure, it will not necessarily collapse strictly from top to bottom. Indeed, depending on the nature of the structure, the bottom may tend to collapse first.

A failure at the bottom of the tower prior to the floors above it collapsing on it doesn't necessarily indicate anything other than that it may well have failed as a consequence of the considerable shock transmitted through the structure from the initial collapse of the damage floors far above.

In the spirit of the home physicist, the concept can be demonstrated by standing a cracker box on end (say, a box of Carr's biscuits) and smacking it with one of the books left over from the previous experiment. If you leave the crackers in the box, you'll need to really smack it hard, but the effect will be much more dramatic.


As for the other comments about condescension, suggestions that I don't know what I'm addressing and the issue of strawmen, yeah, I guess I'm out of line -- particularly in light of the mature and civil nature of the discussion so far, which is quite in keeping with the etiquette standards of most Internet gaming forums.


I think the tone of this thread is infectious, don't like the effect it's having on me, am frankly rather disappointed to find so little fact served up with so much sarcasm on what might otherwise be a worthwhile topic for discussion and, barring some emergence of credible evidence instead of a seemingly endless cycle of speculation, personal attacks and general recrimination among otherwise good-natured ATSers, am done with this thread.

This is not what I come to ATS for.

If the goal of this process is to drag the principles of ATS scholarship into the mud, derogate critical thinking and silence dissent, it's working, although I will say in parting that nothing I have seen presented here even comes close to proving the thesis of this thread, which I therefore cannot support.

Here's hoping someone manages to deny ignorance, because from my vantage point, it's looking pretty grim.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Hello


What about the SOUNDS ?

This thread is great but not enough focused on the most compelling evidence : the recorded sounds of the bombs explosions. I believe this is why 911eyewitness footage has become public. And the "wind" theory is a joke imo.

[edit on 8/3/2006 by Musclor]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Eyewitnesses close to the towers also reported three large explosions before the north tower fell and Siegel's tape proves they were not imagining things.

Thank goodness the firemen's testimonies have finally become public but there are still a lot that remain classified for National Security. That is the gov would crumble if the truth got out so they have to keep the hard core stuff under wraps.

Siegel mentioned putting down his binoculars to zoom in on the towers after he saw what he thought was a helicopter rescue. So I don't think anyone was helping him.

He later let the camera run apparently to console the lady beside who just lost her husband when the north tower imploded.

Collateral damage for an endless war on an invisible enemy.

Hear comes Iran, they've started plans to switch all oil settlements from the dollar to the Euro, that's what moved up the plan against Saddam.
Chavez is saying the same thing so the evil doers are planning to take care of him at some point as well.

It's all about oil folks, 9/11 is just the show to get the ball rolling.
Can't have the dollar dive with oil being paid for in eruos, the US economy can't stay afload on drug money if that happens.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
In the spirit of the home physicist, the concept can be demonstrated by standing a cracker box on end (say, a box of Carr's biscuits) and smacking it with one of the books left over from the previous experiment. If you leave the crackers in the box, you'll need to really smack it hard, but the effect will be much more dramatic.


if this is supposed to represent the towers, then you will have to smack the box of crackers with crackers to stay true to the analogy.

as you well illustrate, when the box is full of crackers(that aren't even WELDED to the box!) it is MUCH harder to crush the box.

here's another one. give the full box one good whack that pushes it flat to the ground. is your kitchen now covered in ultrafine flour?



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Smackdown Part II LoLz0Rs


Originally posted by Majic
Smackdown

If you strike downward on a structure, it will not necessarily collapse strictly from top to bottom. Indeed, depending on the nature of the structure, the bottom may tend to collapse first.

A failure at the bottom of the tower prior to the floors above it collapsing on it doesn't necessarily indicate anything other than that it may well have failed as a consequence of the considerable shock transmitted through the structure from the initial collapse of the damage floors far above.

In the spirit of the home physicist, the concept can be demonstrated by standing a cracker box on end (say, a box of Carr's biscuits) and smacking it with one of the books left over from the previous experiment. If you leave the crackers in the box, you'll need to really smack it hard, but the effect will be much more dramatic.


Because of the design of the WTC and the way in which they fell, and the nature of the explosions, I think this can be ruled out pretty safely, unless you fancy holding on to things because of what they imply instead of whether or not they're very likely.

The columns were not set up floor by floor, with core columns welded together across floors and exterior columns set up in a staggered fashion, held together by spandrels and placed in a sort of jigsaw pattern. However, the trusses and the concrete floor slabs they held were under each floor and served two functions here:

A) Absorbtion of lateral loads (ie vibrating columns from failures above, which in all likelihood would have been pretty minor anyway imo, especially since the exterior columns designed to take such loads were not visibly moving!; the WTC were designed to take the lateral loads presented by hurricane winds through the exterior columns/trusses).

B) Stopping air from rushing down as though through a hollow tube, because I know some people are going to continue to believe that this somehow happened anyway.

Common pancake theory is that the trusses failed on the first floor to fall, and then beyond that, each floor just fell one on top of another all the way down. How the actually pancaking occurred has never been described in detail, but suggesting some failures went ahead of others (ie pieces falling down so many floors above the destruction wave visible outside, and causing damage below the destruction wave) would just raise many more questions than it answers, such as

1) how the debris managed to get so far ahead through steel trusses and concrete slabs on each floor,

2) what exactly caused the outwards ejection of this debris once reaching the floor from which it was expelled, and how this could logically occur, and

3) how the debris could possibly be falling through a solid building at such speeds, because dropping much faster than the destruction wave on the outside would be pushing damned near free-fall speed through a vacuum, if not breaking it.


As for the other comments about condescension, suggestions that I don't know what I'm addressing and the issue of strawmen, yeah, I guess I'm out of line -- particularly in light of the mature and civil nature of the discussion so far, which is quite in keeping with the etiquette standards of most Internet gaming forums.


Dressing up condescension with more "proper" words just makes it that much more snobby, imo. At least I can have some fun with it, when I have to post any at all. And I know I can be an ass. I certainly wasn't sending any condescension your way, though, or anyone else's on this thread so far as I remember, prior to your posting. My two cents.

And with those unnecessary lines, you did seem to lack an understanding of what you were addressing, since the argument for which that point is used is that the amount of debris ejected outwards would make it really hard for the collapse to continue at the same rate of speed, because of the loss of mass. Impulse is related to momentum, and momentum is tied directly to the amount of mass.

Therefore with less mass, you are not going to get as far in a situation like this as you would with more mass. And yet the exact opposite happened at the WTC, until the caps were completely disintegrated and the collapse continued rolling right along at the same rate. Kind of impossible. That was the argument; not that the amount of debris alone indicated explosives.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
if this is supposed to represent the towers, then you will have to smack the box of crackers with crackers to stay true to the analogy.

as you well illustrate, when the box is full of crackers(that aren't even WELDED to the box!) it is MUCH harder to crush the box.

here's another one. give the full box one good whack that pushes it flat to the ground. is your kitchen now covered in ultrafine flour?


And the amount of force you can apply in these examples depends upon how hard you hit.

With the WTC Towers, the amount of energy available was fixed. We're looking at this:



(Image credit goes to the LetsRoll911 forums.)

And again, those top floors are structurally the weakest, and the lightest.

And the collapse never slowed, suggesting no loss of momentum from the falling material, when in reality we know for a fact that much mass was lost during the collapse. That alone would be enough to logically refute official theory if people weren't so tied up over the implications.

[edit on 8-3-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Musclor
Hello


What about the SOUNDS ?

This thread is great but not enough focused on the most compelling evidence : the recorded sounds of the bombs explosions. I believe this is why 911eyewitness footage has become public. And the "wind" theory is a joke imo.

[edit on 8/3/2006 by Musclor]


It wasn’t just the sounds, but they line up with the seismic data, the 40+ story tall plume of dust, it is a jaw dropper for sure. I saw the wind claims on a lot of sites but hear nothing on my copy that sounds like wind. If it were wind the radio would have its sound changed too as the microphone accommodated for it. Nope, that is some mean footage.


I like when they move the sound so it is realtime with the video. Makes your knees tremble when the bass is turned up.
free video is here but sound is not as good.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by billybob
if this is supposed to represent the towers, then you will have to smack the box of crackers with crackers to stay true to the analogy.

as you well illustrate, when the box is full of crackers(that aren't even WELDED to the box!) it is MUCH harder to crush the box.

here's another one. give the full box one good whack that pushes it flat to the ground. is your kitchen now covered in ultrafine flour?




(Image credit goes to the LetsRoll911 forums.)

And again, those top floors are structurally the weakest, and the lightest.

And the collapse never slowed, suggesting no loss of momentum from the falling material, when in reality we know for a fact that much mass was lost during the collapse. That alone would be enough to logically refute official theory if people weren't so tied up over the implications.


okay, let's get this straight.

we're talking CRACKERS here, and you're on about 'towers'.

whatever!?

HAHA!

edited to fix 'strraheighttt', which was the word standing in for 'straight'.

[edit on 8-3-2006 by billybob]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
okay, let's get this sthriaght.

we're talking CRACKERS here, and you're on about 'towers'.

whatever!?

HAHA!


Doh! I'm such a dumbass!


Here:





The text is a bit quick, but it says "Must have been a truss failure... ;( Let's invade Afghanistan.
"

Also, for anyone interested, the top part of the box that is initially falling down is proportionate to the 13 floors of WTC1. I think it was 271 pixels high, divided by 110 and then multiplied by 13, which came out to about 32 pixels, so I went down 32 pixels and thus the "cap" of the collapsing cracker box.


[edit on 8-3-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
13?!
32!?!!!

why, you're not a ILLUMINATI MASON, are you?

i'm scared, mommy.

you owe me underwear, dude, as i have peed myself laughing at your stuff.


XL5

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
The buildings would have possibly stopped collapsing or at least slowed down if it was made of springsteel or had giant rubber shock absorbers on each floor. Shock absorbers work because they lenghten the time/distance of a shock, which reduces its peak power. A single AA batery can be used to get a MegaWatt of peak power if it charges a high voltage capacitor in one day and then the capacitor is discharged in less then 1nS. This is the same reson people can lift their own body weight but it they fall at a fast enough rate, they break they get broken legs. Impact air wrenchs work the same way to shock bolts free instead of having very long handled wrenches.

For most of you that skipped it.

At the moment the debris is ejected sidways, the floor under it hasen't started falling yet and has no up or down movment, then the debris hits air that has not been thrust down by the main body of the building. The building is moving faster then the debris, and therefore the debris is higher then the floor it was ejected from. The debris is lighter, it has more air resistance (surface area) and has thick dust to make the bigger bits "float" a tiny bit more then in just free air. The debris does eventually gain downward velocity and this forms the arc you see.

It is like the experiment of the bowling ball and the feather ( they should both fall at the same speed) but they don't because the feather has air resistance. However, if the feather is placed on top of the bowling ball, it has no air resistance and it falls at the same speed.

If it was a timed explosion that controlled the speed of collapse, debris would have also been seen to shoot downward at an angle too.

Also, why just one "squib"? If there were more then one bomb, why only one "squib" and on a lower floor as well? Did they have to blow up the money printing press?

This is not a school test, it is not smart to skip one and move onto the next question because you don't know what to say or what the answer is.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
The buildings would have possibly stopped collapsing or at least slowed down if it was made of springsteel or had giant rubber shock absorbers on each floor.


Or if there was a huge amount of material in the way of the falling floors.

Have you seen the failed Dakota demolition? No shock absorbers on that, and it was made of concrete: very rigid material. This is because you don't need any of that crap for basic physics to take effect.


A single AA batery can be used to get a MegaWatt of peak power if it charges a high voltage capacitor in one day and then the capacitor is discharged in less then 1nS. This is the same reson people can lift their own body weight but it they fall at a fast enough rate, they break they get broken legs. Impact air wrenchs work the same way to shock bolts free instead of having very long handled wrenches.


Ok; of these three comparisons I see absolutely no relation to the WTC collapses.

The closest thing to relevant I see there seems to involve the assumption that there were periods of free fall as the buildings collapsed. According to official theory, there would not have been, because the steel would have to be resisted all the way down, not just one floor blown out instantly, then free fall, then another floor blown out instantly, then free fall.... The falling material would've been resisted by steel all the way down. Only if there were explosives could floors be blown out instantaneously like that. Otherwise, there would have to be continuously-applied force from above (the falling material).


At the moment the debris is ejected sidways, the floor under it hasen't started falling yet and has no up or down movment, then the debris hits air that has not been thrust down by the main body of the building.


If the floor below hasn't started falling yet as debris is ejected laterally, then how is the material being ejected laterally in the first place?

And keep in mind how fast these floors are being destroyed, and therefore how fast all of these things are taking place on each floor, allegedly:

10 seconds: 11 floors a second = 0.09 seconds a floor
11 seconds: 10 floors a second = 0.10 seconds a floor
12 seconds: 9.16 floors a second = 0.11 seconds a floor
13 seconds: 8.46 floors a second = 0.12 seconds a floor
14 seconds: 7.86 floors a second = 0.13 seconds a floor
15 seconds: 7.33 floors a second = 0.14 seconds a floor

Each floor is about 12.5 feet high. That's freaking booking it, even with a 15 second collapse time, whereas I believe the official story holds both collapses below 15 seconds. For example, for a 12-second collapse time, 0.11 seconds for 12.5 feet is 113.64 feet per second.

So whatever you guys decide to settle on when it comes to how global collapse occured, it better be straightforward enough to have been able to happen within a fraction of a second, while the collapse itself maintains perfect symmetry, which I suppose was some sort of super-coincidence, that the trusses or whatever failed at the exact same time on each floor all the way down, in both towers.




The building is moving faster then the debris, and therefore the debris is higher then the floor it was ejected from.


This didn't happen, but if it did, then the collapse would've been moving faster than free-fall through air, which would automatically indicate demolition. Look at pics and you'll see debris falling to the ground before the destruction waves reach the ground in either tower.


If it was a timed explosion that controlled the speed of collapse, debris would have also been seen to shoot downward at an angle too.


Not necessarily. First of all, explosives can be shaped. Second, unless the explosives were on the exterior, you wouldn't be seeing any downward-ejected debris anyway.


Also, why just one "squib"?


If you mean my animation, I was too lazy to add more. If you mean the buildings, there were more than one conspicuously sticking out.


XL5

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   
The impacted floor gave way very fast as soon as it became weakend enough. You could assume the impacted floor was at ground level, since only the upper floors were acting on it at the time before it fell. As soon as that huge mass was released, it fractured the steel beams on the floors below because when you hit hardend steel sharply enough, it snaps and offers no resistance.

I have not seen the Dakota demo, but I don't think it would compair to this unless it had a mid to upper 1/8's floor collapse and the floors above it were untouched. Did it have concrete around it or soft earth?

As for the dust, it was not in freefall. The chunks that were blowen out and hit the ground before the roof of the building were the big pieces that had less surface area for the amount of mass they had (less air resistance). When the dust was ejected, it was from a floor that was not falling down yet, the floor above was forcing it out with the air. A bowling ball would fall at true terminal velocity and would fall before anything on the WTC hit the ground. Nothing was in TRUE freefall that day.

The reason I mention the "squib(s)" is because I don't even see the reason that explosives were going off that far down and not in an even pattern.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by XL5
The buildings would have possibly stopped collapsing or at least slowed down if it was made of springsteel or had giant rubber shock absorbers on each floor. Shock absorbers work because they lenghten the time/distance of a shock, which reduces its peak power.

(snip)

For most of you that skipped it.

(skip)


This is not a school test, it is not smart to skip one and move onto the next question because you don't know what to say or what the answer is.


there were rubber viscolelastic dampers between the perimeter and the bottom of the floor trusses. about 64 per side(every 39 inches).

buddy, here, thinks it 's a design flaw. i don't know enough to agree or disagree, but there is some information on it. remember, these dampers are LOADBEARING, and not cheesy little pieces of rubber.

[img]http://www.DesignCommunity.com/discussion/images/wtc_damper_nn_fig2.jpg/[img]

the brazant zhou article(written two days after the attack) treats the towers and the collapse as elastic.

and, don't forget the powder. how does a grinder work? up and down, or back and forth?
can you turn concrete into an ultrafine powder by whacking it once? (no, is the answer)

it takes a great deal of time and enrgy to create ultra fine dust by grinding. to practically INSTANTLY make enough dust to cover many city blocks with an inches thick layer of it is only possible with explosives or perhaps some more exotic weapon like a sonic pulse or thermobaric bomb, or fusion nuke.

did you know that rebar can be wrapped in C4, and then concrete can be poured around it? that would do it.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join