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.

 

Building 7 And Newtonian Physics

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I know there is a lot of heated debate on this board about the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and who perpetrated them. For a long time, I was skeptical of the eidence presented by those who questioned the official story. But I'd like to share with you the piece of evidence that convinced me that there were explosives used in at least one of the buildings. Building seven.

I, like I'm sure many americans, was anaware that anything other than the twin towers collapsed that day. While I watched the video, I was amazed by how quickly the building fell. I had read that it fell at the same speed as gravity, so I decided to test that theory out myself.

You can read almost anywhere online, that Building 7 is 230 meters tall. There are three different videos of the building collapsing (or at least, three that I could find), so I used a stop watch and timed all three videos, using the corner of the building as my frame of reference. Once it started moving, I started timing. Admitedly, it's going to be hard with the videos we have to get an extremely precise timing, but I think we can get pretty close by averaging the three results.

Video 1 - 4.84 seconds
Video 2 - 4.90 seconds
Video 3 - 4.98 seconds

Average fall time - 4.91 seconds

I then took the two simple physics equations.

a = v/t
and
v = d/t

Giving us a = (d/t)/t

a = the rate at which the building fell.
v = velocity
d = distance
t = time

Gravity is 9.8 meters per second squared, and if what I read was accurate, the above equation should more or less equal 9.8 mps2. So let's do the math.

a = (230/4.91)/4.91
a = 46.84/4.91
a = 9.54 mps2

Pretty close to 9.8mps2, or the rate at which something would have free fallen from that height.

Now, if the building had collapsed due to debris damage, fires, and everything else that the official story leads us to believe, then there would have been resistence from the portions of the structure that were undamaged. It would have been a jagged, rough collapse, not a smooth fall like we see in the videos.

I don't really want this thread to be an arguement about who committed the attacks of 9/11, I want it to be evidence that there was more involved in the attacks that 2 hijacked airplanes. There had to be explosives used to make the building fall that quickly.




posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I agree with you 100% and the film in the thread linked below goes into detail about the very subject you discuss here. I highly recommend this film. Good job!

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Yep, puuuurty much.


The collapse of WTC7 breaks more physics laws than a two hour Bugs Bunny cartoon. Unless you add in the Acme TNT, that is.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Well, I appreciate that every one wants to agree with you, but there's one problem.

You're dead wrong.

Please see this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And I quote my relevant post

www.abovetopsecret.com...

here:

Apparently there was a seismic station that recorded an event at the time of the WTC1 collapse that had an 8.1 second duration.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   
The seismic data is not relevant to the collapse for a number of reasons.

1) the seismic signal is spread out by the passage of the energy through the intervening rock.

2) The seismic signal is not representative of the entire collapse, just the energy pulse when the bulk of the building mass hit the ground.

however, you are quite right about the visible height of the building. How can you time the entire fall of 230 meters if you can only see the top 15 floors or so?

Also, the first indications of a collapse occurred a couple of seconds before the global collapse started when the roof-line of the penthouse started to move. You should start your stop watch then, but most conspiracy site copies of the video conveniently cut that part out of the video.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The seismic data is not relevant to the collapse for a number of reasons.

1) the seismic signal is spread out by the passage of the energy through the intervening rock.

2) The seismic signal is not representative of the entire collapse, just the energy pulse when the bulk of the building mass hit the ground.




We are in total agreement, howard. I copied my post from another thread in which it was originally in response to some one attempting to use seismic data to say the building collapsed in some ludicrously small time frame.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Not to split hairs here Valhall and HowardRoark, but I am speaking of Building 7, not the twin towers, which your post on seismic evidence is disputing.

Nowhere in my post did I even mention seismic evidence for my timing. took the three videos I could find (again, of Building 7), and timed it myself. If you can think of a better way to get a time frame for the collapse, feel free to suggest it. But please don't mislead people into thinking I said something in my original post whcih I did not. Your math skills are impressive, but completely useless as they do not address the timing of Building 7.

Is there any seismic evidence of how long it took Building 7 to collapse?



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, I appreciate that every one wants to agree with you, but there's one problem. You're dead wrong.

In this footage, in 10 seconds the top of WTC1 has just fallen to the height of the Woolworth Building


I think that Garden Spider's post is about WTC Building 7, not WTC1.

EDIT: Beat me to it.


[edit on 2005-12-17 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   
My post was in response to Vallhall's response. . . Oh, never mind



Anyway, the part about timing the fall based on a partial video only showing part of the building is still valid, and I was talking about building 7.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, I appreciate that every one wants to agree with you, but there's one problem. You're dead wrong.

In this footage, in 10 seconds the top of WTC1 has just fallen to the height of the Woolworth Building


I think that Garden Spider's post is about WTC Building 7, not WTC1.

EDIT: Beat me to it.


[edit on 2005-12-17 by wecomeinpeace]


GOTCHA! My bad. So what's the argument? That because a partial video makes it look like it fell faster than gravity it was blown up?

You could have detonated every single floor in that building and the top of that building would still fall at some rate slower than 9.8 m/s^2. So to even imply that it fell faster does nothing but make an argument completely invalid. Blowing up the floors doesn't negate physical laws, the roof still has to travel the same distance to the ground.

Why don't we try to find a video that shows ALL of the collapse, or multiple videos that can be used (as I did in the WTC1 analysis) to see what the real fall time is? Then we might be able to get some where with this. But we have to get to the point we're discussing something that is physically possible in our universe first.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
P.S. Want to clarify my intent. My above suggestions are to HELP you analyze this, not destroy your argument. We now have an analysis of WTC1 that we could say helps to establish a "fall rate/floor" if you will. Now, that won't be entirely accurate, but it is something we can use as a benchmark. If we can find a video that has the complete fall time of WTC 7, or multiple videos that we can patch together to get a complete fall time for 7, then we can do some comparison to say whether it reflects a drastically decreased impedance. If this analysis was to show that WTC 7 experienced far less resistance in its fall, then you've got something to go further on. It might turn out that difference in building construction, architecture, etc. ends up explaining that difference, but you at least have to get some REAL numbers first.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Valhall and HowardRoark,

As I said in my original post, I timed the event using three different videos, not just the one that most everybody has seen, where the bottom bit of the building is not viewable. Here's a collection of the videos that can be used in the timing of the collapse.

And like I said, if someone can think of a better way to timing the collapse, I'd be open to the idea.

Also, my conclusion, the 9.51 mps2 that my formula yuielded is actually slower than the pull of gravity, not faster. It would have to be a number greater than 9.8 to be faster than the speed of gravity, not lower than 9.8.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Garden Spider, the question still remains, at what point did you start your stop watch? And is that point representative of the start of the building collapse?

Did you start timing the collapse when the east penthouse roof started to move? This is a clear indication of the collapse, yet this movement started a full 8 seconds before the global collapse started.

See Page 26.

If you didn’t start your watch at that point, then why not?



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Two Points HowardRoark,


#1 - I did not start the timer from the time the pent house began to collapse, because in the majority of the videos of the collapse, which were taken from ground level, because of the angle of the shot, it is impossible to see the penthouse. If what you say is true, why did the penthouse collapse first? The fires weren't in the penthouse, per the official FEMA report, there were fires on floors 7,8,9,10,11,12,19,27, and 28. How is it that fires on these floors caused the penthouse to collapse first, as you claim.

#2 - I'd like to know where you got your eight second collapse time for the penthouse. But it's a moot point. What I am talking about, is the time it takes the top floor of the building, once the total collapse begins, to hit the ground. If it were a collapse due to structural damage and fire, it would meet resistance, and the fall would be slower than that of gravity. But from the moment the "total collapes" begins, we don't observe any resistance. Even when the Twin Towers collapsed, we saw resistance in how it fell, as Valhall so nicely showed us with her seismic readings and math skills, but we don't see that with Tower 7.

So, if you're going to bring the penthouses into it, you need to show us how you got the 8 second time table, and explain why they collapsed first when they were about 20 odd floors away from the fires per the official FEMA report.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garden Spider
Two Points HowardRoark,


#1 - I did not start the timer from the time the pent house began to collapse, because in the majority of the videos of the collapse, which were taken from ground level, because of the angle of the shot, it is impossible to see the penthouse.


So, in other words, your timing analysis has a built in bias, because you were unable to accurately see the beginning of the structural movement that signaled the collapse.



If what you say is true, why did the penthouse collapse first? The fires weren't in the penthouse, per the official FEMA report, there were fires on floors 7,8,9,10,11,12,19,27, and 28. How is it that fires on these floors caused the penthouse to collapse first, as you claim.


well, if a column failed on those levels, and if the penthouse was on top of the column, then. . . .



#2 - I'd like to know where you got your eight second collapse time for the penthouse.


LINK - - - See Page 26. - - - -LINK



But it's a moot point. What I am talking about, is the time it takes the top floor of the building, once the total collapse begins, to hit the ground. If it were a collapse due to structural damage and fire, it would meet resistance, and the fall would be slower than that of gravity.


There was resistance. It took several second for the initial column failure to affect the adjacent columns and to cause the adjacent columns to fail in sequence. That is where the 8+ seconds comes from. You can’t ignore that time and then say that there was no structural resistance.

If you are going to time the collapse from the start to the finish you have to time it from the start of the structural movement that signals the collapse. By limiting your analysis to the very last portion of the global collapse, you have biased and invalidated your analysis.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garden Spider


Also, my conclusion, the 9.51 mps2 that my formula yuielded is actually slower than the pull of gravity, not faster. It would have to be a number greater than 9.8 to be faster than the speed of gravity, not lower than 9.8.


Gotcha again. Now that I have reconciled myself on TWO important factors of your original post, I'm now ready to actually act like I have a brain.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   
OK HowardRoark,

You say:

"well, if a column failed on those levels, and if the penthouse was on top of the column, then..."

You also roll your eyes, which is a great way to have an intelligent dialogue. But I digress. And the link you provided me isn't working. It's likely an issue with my computer. Sorry about that.


Here's a diagram of the truss system. See, in construction, they make things called trusses, which shift and bear a significant amount of the weight. So, if a fire on the 28th floor were to weaken the core column enough to cause a collapse, it woudl occur on the floor with the fire, not five floors above, because the trusses would spread the weight burden out across the entire floor. So you wouldn't get a top for collapse, you would get a mid floor collapse.


Diagram of the trussing

Diagram of the columns, where you can clearly see the core columns are not near the penthouses.

But again, it is a moot point. You're arguement is completely and totally moot. You're basically saying "Look, the penthouse collapsed first, showing there was resistance, and then the rest of the building fell without resistance, and that's a perfectly good explanation, I'm awesome and I win". I'm sorry, but it's not that simple of a solution. Can you explain then why there was resistance for the penthouse collapse, and then no resistance for the rest of the building? Because that's the aprt I'm having trouble with. If you time the collapse of the building, excluding the two penthouses, there is not resistance, and argueing that there was by using the penthouses is an invalid arguement.

I am honestly interested in hearing what you have to say Valhall. You make some really great points in your other posts.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garden Spider
As I said in my original post, I timed the event using three different videos, not just the one that most everybody has seen, where the bottom bit of the building is not viewable. Here's a collection of the videos that can be used in the timing of the collapse.



Were these videos the originals, or were they from the Internet?

Reason I ask is the originals were filmed @30FPS, the ones from the Internet, are more than likely @ 24FPS ( at least the ones I checked ), and that will throw the time off...

JMO...



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I did use the videos found on the internet, but I don't understand how capturing something digitally from video would affect the frames per second of the video.

And even so, going from 30 to 24 frames per second would only have a variable effect of 3 hundredths of the first and last second, whcih would make the original math I did change by give or take .01 mps2 or so. Not enough to dramatically effect the outcome of the equation. or account for the rapid fall of the building.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I know what a truss is. I’ll tell you what. I wont roll my eyes, if you don’t be condescending.


Anyway, you are steering the topic away from the initial post.

My point was that you can’t only look at part of the collapse. You have to look at all of the structural movement. Once the structure was destabilize to the point of total collapse, al the trusses in the world wouldn’t have made a difference, one the load paths were compromised. All the trusses were at that point were extra weight.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join