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.

 

Faster than Freefall, Proof of Demolition

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu

Originally posted by billybob
this is proof that bombs were used.

Yes, it is. In Bizarro World.

How do we know that the stuff you're pointing to isn't falling at the freefall rate, and the other stuff is falling SLOWER than freefall? Huh?

I think if you take a close look at the photo, you'll notice that some of the debris is actually traveling UPWARD into the sky. Does this prove the terrorists also attacked the building with an anti-gravity weapon? I believe it does.


you prefer rove-world, then? create your own reality through propoganda?

i thought i made it clear that these are two consecutive frames from a television broadcast video. (which puts them about 1/30sec apart in time)

as i said in the previous post, you can watch the whole video if you SIMPLY click the links on the previous page. then you will see that the debris is not travelling up the building.

the video is proof, the picture shows you what you're watching out for.




posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

the video is proof, the picture shows you what you're watching out for.



Like a Rorschach ink blot test?

You see what you want to see.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Bazant-Zhou estimated the mass of the upper part of the north tower to be 58,000,000 kg. Accpeting that number for now, and stipulating a 3 meter fall. If we assume that the lower floor was able to move downward 0.25 meter before the deformation caused loss of strucutral integrity (an arbitrary number), then calculating the force of the impact gives us an impact force of 6,820,800,000 N, or about 10 times more than your calculation of the impact force.


Can you show these calcs please? And depending on what mass is used you get different results.

Edit: Nevermind. I used the link you posted. Can you explain where you got 0.25m from. Because if the deformation is higher then the force is lower.

[edit on 30-3-2006 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Ya know i was thinking that according to videos faster then free fall was attained when air resistence was not considered. Isn't it possible that because the building isn't being dropped from some really really really big helocopter, but instead the top floor is falling on the one below that their is no air resitence? The only air would be inbetween the floors, and it is possible that had a neglible affect on the buildings fall.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
this video is taken the moment the building is collapsing right? then compare it to a real demolition for instance.. after the blasts go off, the collapse starts a fraction later..

still I think the accumulation of the floors falling on top of each other causes this effect.. the whole area above the plane entry point plus the plain itself falls, gains speed during falling 2 meters orso, hits the floor below, breaks thru that, gains another floor of weight, accelerates even faster, hitting the floor below that with more speed and mass, breaks thru, gains another floor of weight.. a chain reaction, speeding up really fast.

and yeah, the debris clouds are blasting sideways.. the solid material in it will eventually fall, but after loosing its (considerable) sideways speed. Most of it being dust.. one story of concrete really pulverizes under these conditions, i'd bet.

The bigger pieces which u see falling straight down, are the wall itself on that place, after that comes the content of that block-sized office-floor blasting at 90 degrees straight out... I think easily enough to make it look like an explosion to the eye who sees what he wants to see.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
So debris is the cause for the collapse of WTC 7
? How big is this debris? How far away was WTC 7 from the other two buildings that a significant amount of debris actually came into contact with it to have a such a sever impact. Upon further review of video and photos, it looks as if much of the debris from the other two buildings fell straight down
. It seems to me that controlled demolitions are performed in the middle of heavily populated areas such as NYC with numerous surrounding buildings and the debris from such demolitions has no significant impact on the resulting area
! If fire is your answer to this puzzling issue, I seriously doubt the flames from the other two buildings jumped to WTC 7 and caused the structural steel to warp and collapse. It is a stretch and very naive to say and believe that WTC 7 collapsed due to the effects from the other two buildings



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by phiniks
and yeah, the debris clouds are blasting sideways.. the solid material in it will eventually fall, but after loosing its (considerable) sideways speed.


No. Have you taken basic physics. It is not like the roadrunner and Wyle E. Coyote. Gravity acts in the downward direction at all times. So, even if it is ejected horizontally, it will fall at the same rate as everything else.

A bullet from a gun falls at the same rate as a bowling ball dropped from the same height.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I agree with Griff. Everything falls at the same rate due to the effect of gravity at 9.8 m/s/s (seconds squared). A 50lb cannonball will fall at the same rate as a 10 ounce marble. If dropped from the same height at the same time, they will impact the ground at the exact same time. Newton discovered this in the 1600s.


[edit on 30-3-2006 by romulus_10]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
In order for the "Pancaking" effect to be feasible, each successive floor must collapse identically and evenly for the building to fall straight down. This would not happen unless the structural weight bearing columns were all weakened in the same positions.

We all built structures as kids with blocks. If you ever threw something at this man mad structure, it would collapse. Not in the way we saw on 911, but asymmetrically. This is what should've happen on that day, but with the aid of a controlled demolition, the collapse was as neat and clean as possible. If you placed strings, say on the 4 corners of your block building and pulled all 4 strings simultaneously so as to remove the structural integrity of your structure, you would see something similar as to the 911 fiasco.

This still doesn't address WTC 7. Debris may have hit the builiding from the top and the side, but not from the inside where structural damage would have occurred. Difficult questions sometimes may be answered with the simplest of answers.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
here is what NIST couldn't seem to find five bucks for....luxinzheng.net, Lu and Jiang


source

One of the papers presented by supporters in support of gravitation collapse is that of Lu and Jiang:

www.luxinzheng.net...

Lu-Jiang present what is the only FEM simulation of the collapse of the towers that I am aware of. The authors are only able to induce a complete collapse in an extreme case when they lower the fracture plastic strain of the steel to 0.5%. When this value is at 1% there is only a partial collapse that is arrested 100m below the damaged areas. At 5% there is only a localized collapse near the plane impact area. "gordon" has shown from Bazant-Zhou and Greening that a strain of at least 3% is expected. Further, in the Lu-Jiang case of 0.5%, the simulated collapse times are much greater than the actual times. The collapse times they found are:

North Tower: 1:53
South Tower: 1:32

For the North Tower, that is about a factor of 7 greater than the actual time. Note that Lu-Jiang do not report the collapse times given by the simulation in their paper. They are not attempting to support a CD hypothesis. When asked about the discrepancy between the observed and simulated collapse times they responded:



I think that it may depends on the region that softened under the fire. You have read in our work that we only considered the softening of structures in the impacted stories. But from recent work it is widely belived that a much larger part of WTC has been influenced by the fire due to the flow of oil inside the building.


I don't believe that this assertion can be supported. Nothing in the NIST study suggests that "a much larger part of the WTC has been influenced by the fire". The floors affected by fires are well documented for WTC 1 and 2. (I assume that flow of oil refers to jet fuel.)



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Can you explain where you got 0.25m from. Because if the deformation is higher then the force is lower.

[edit on 30-3-2006 by Griff]



Totally arbitrary.
Although I think the clip angles would tear out long before that.

You could make the case that the entire building could absorb the impact, elastically. I think B&Z did go into that a bit. but then the other problem is that if you look at the buckling walls prior to the collapse you will notice that the buckle spans several floors. For this reason, I don’t think it is accurate to limit yourself to an initial fall of only 3 meters.

I also think that his is a bit unrealistic in that you really don’t have two impermeable, solid, rigid bodies impacting each other.

But it is useful to help “visualize” the scale of the forces involved.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Then you are probably familiar with supply and return air systems, air shafts, and air fresh air intakes.

What would happen to the air in an air shaft as the floor is feeds collapses?


Not sure what your trying to allude to, but more likely than not the air in the ductwork would simply be forced back out the supply diffusers and return air grilles. Some would be trapped momentarily by the fire dampers, but that wouldn't last. Commercial HVAC is usually sheet metal for the most part, not really that sturdy, if anything it probably wouldn't have made much difference one way or the other.


Originally posted by yadboy
There WOULD be more resistance to the collapse from the structural steel in that building.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Can you do the calculations, or are you just a CAD operator?


Aw that hurt, no I am not "just a CAD operator" I am currently helping design a centrifuge balancing stand and the HVAC/piping for a shaped explosives manufacturing facility. Your job seems to be to make assumptions about people you know nothing about.
If you wanna come watch my newborn for me tonight I'll get those calcs for you, make sure to bring the bldg plans with you.


Originally posted by yadboy
There's no way it would fall that fast if the support structure was intact. The jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough or long enough to soften the steel. After the initial explosion most of the jet fuel was already burned off. That leaves a fire of burning wood, sheetrock, office funiture, etc to generate the tempertures it would take to soften structural steel, not gonna happen.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Then why do building owners bother to apply fireproofing to steel? That is a lot of money that could be saved in the construction costs.


Yeah, see there this thing called "standards", it's a bunch of rule books dreamed up by guys in a lab that are trying to simulate real world conditions to make things work better or safer. Fire protection standards are WAY overdone. But you gotta follow their rules or you don't pass inspection. Overreaching standards add quite a bit to the cost of many construction projects, but you gotta do what the man says.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
But it is useful to help “visualize” the scale of the forces involved.


The "forces involved," as you put it, don't matter like you're suggesting.

Any body falling via gravity can only fall so fast, no matter how big or with how much momentum. The falling floors could not have exceeded the speed of gravity, for example, without additional force. And when those floors impacted, they most definitely would not have accelerated, so what you're suggesting is completely stupid.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Can you do the calculations, or are you just a CAD operator?


You've got a lot of nerve challenging people's qualifications to comment when you've admitted that you are not a structural engineer yourself (I believe at most you worked on construction sites for a while, correct?) and when in the very same thread you come out with things like this:

Originally posted by HowardRoark:
Force equals momentum divided by time.

Shall we all put that in our sig, Mr Roark? What do you think?

Why don't you focus your comments on the posted content rather than the speaker, as you have been repeatedly asked to do for the last two or more years? The same old tactics pulled out over and over are getting tiresome.

[edit on 2006-3-30 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
WTC was hit by falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1 resulting in sever strucutral damage. It caught fire and burned for 7 hours before it fell.


Hello Howard,

I would like to ask you, if there's something what seems to you at least a bit weird with the WTC7 collapse. You know from your replies one can assume that you completely believe in official story.

- Almost free fall speed
- Complete symmetrical collapse
- No major fires
- "Pull it" comment
- Buildings left and right to WTC7 standing still (xibo.com...)

You know Howard I am also curious what happened there, but because of these things highly suspicious.

Thanks.


[edit on 2006-3-31 by zer69]


XL5

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 02:54 AM
link   
I think bombs would have made the top part of the tower rise before it fell, even if just by one foot. Then it would have fallen at the same rate it did anyway, UNLESS "timed" thermite is claimed or a giant invisible rocket engine mounted to the top.

How could 90+ timed explosives make the tower go faster then free fall? If less explosives were used, why wouldn't the building have slowed down as the undamaged floor started to compress?



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I did a quick calculation.

I have found that the heaviest take off weight of a 767 is 179,170 kg (forgot to save source) if that's wrong, please let me know.

M=179,170 kg
V=400 mph=178.816 meters/second.....actually this is the difference in velocity from 400 mph to 0 mph
T=.5 seconds

So, the Force is (MxV)/T= (179,170 kgx178.816 m/s)/0.5s=640,076,925.44 kg-m/s squared or 640,076,925.44 Newtons

I'd say that's a heck of a lot of force that the towers withstood. Remember that since the towers didn't fall immediately, that the towers were able to absorb that force. Not sure if my thinking is correct or not, but isn't that a heck of a lot more force than say 13 stories crashing down 12.5 feet?

Note: these are not the exact variables of what happened that day and are only put forth as a reference.


Here are the weights for a 767-200/200ER, with the different engines.
American Airlines 767-200s use the CF6-80A.
United Airlines 767-200s use the JT9D-7R4D.



767-200 - Empty with JT9Ds 74,752kg (164,800lb), with CF6s 74,344kg (163,900lb). Operating empty with JT9Ds 80,920kg (178,400lb), with CF6s 80,510kg (177,500lb). Max takeoff 136,078kg (300,000lb), medium range max takeoff 142,881kg (315,000lb). 767-200ER - Empty with PW4056s 76,566kg (168,800lb), with CF680C2B4s 76,476kg (168,600lb), operating empty with PW4056s 84,415kg (186,100lb), with CF680C2B4Fs 84,370kg (186,000lb). Max takeoff with PW4056s or CF680C2B4Fs 175,540kg (387,000lb)

www.airliners.net...



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
You could make the case that the entire building could absorb the impact, elastically. I think B&Z did go into that a bit. but then the other problem is that if you look at the buckling walls prior to the collapse you will notice that the buckle spans several floors. For this reason, I don’t think it is accurate to limit yourself to an initial fall of only 3 meters.

I also think that his is a bit unrealistic in that you really don’t have two impermeable, solid, rigid bodies impacting each other.

But it is useful to help “visualize” the scale of the forces involved.


whatever.

i noticed that you have ignored the only FineElementModelling ever done on the towers' collapse(that we know of), which 'visualises' the collapses for even the BLIND.
the times of collapse were over one MINUTE and a HALF. BZ, when asked, cited similiar numbers. and jane doe's billiard balls also give these times. it's called, 'physics'.

perhaps it is hard for you to embrace actual science, howard, as you prefer to live in the shelter of rove-world.

the sequenced wave of bombs outpace the freefalling debris right at the instant that i framed with my truly beautiful graphic. that video is proof of demolition.

you can visualise a fantasy world for yourself until the cows go mad, but the fact is, gravity's got a limit to what it can do, speedwise. and one thing gravity cannot do, is speed things through a steel building, faster than it can speed things through air. period.

ink blot, my hind quarters.

and, there is simply no way that that debris in the second frame of my beautiful gif, the dark chunk that is not circled, but is, once again, lower than the freefalling debris, can eject out BELOW the freefalling debris, through the influence of gravity alone.

your syringe theories only work when there is a tube which can compress air. there is no such thing running down the whole side of the building at the corners. even if there was, there is no way that it is structurally stronger than the windows. thin tin ducting vs. skyscraper glass, who wins?

the thing about this is, that it's absolute proof of demolition. that is a hard pill to swallow for everyone. even people who have known this all alone.

at a certain point, the bully says, "yeah. so what are you going to do about it?".



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by phiniks
still I think the accumulation of the floors falling on top of each other causes this effect.. the whole area above the plane entry point plus the plain itself falls, gains speed during falling 2 meters orso, hits the floor below, breaks thru that, gains another floor of weight, accelerates even faster, hitting the floor below that with more speed and mass, breaks thru, gains another floor of weight.. a chain reaction, speeding up really fast.


yeah.

well, here's the thing.

say you have two bowling balls, and you drop them both, and one falls through the air, and the other one is falling through a steel skyscraper.

how will the bowling ball that is falling through the steel skyscraper go faster than the ball that is falling thorugh air? everytime it smashes through a floor it loses speed and momentum, whereas, the freefalling object is gaining speed and momentum.

it's REALLY simple.

and proof.

of demolition.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
and when in the very same thread you come out with things like this:

Originally posted by HowardRoark:
Force equals momentum divided by time.

Shall we all put that in our sig, Mr Roark? What do you think?


Actually, WCIP, Howard is correct in this.

Force equals mass times acceleration. Acceleration is velocity divided by time. Mass times velocity is momemtum. So, using algebra we can conclude that force equals momemtum divided by time.

F=ma a=v/t momemtum=mv F=momemtum(mv)/t

Just so we can keep our mathmatics straight.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join