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: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
IMHO, the inner columns wouldn't be affected though because they weren't designed to take any lateral forces to begin with. Also, the inner columns had their own lateral bracing.


By “lateral bracing” are you referring to the horizontal beams? The core did not have any diagonal bracing.

The resistance to wind loads was provided by the exterior walls, not the core.




posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
That's why I said they weren't designed to take lateral forces (i.e wind). Yes, the horizontal bracing. Even though they didn't have diagonal bracing there still would be buckling resistance. That is the same as a horizontal floor for the outer columns. Or were the floors diagonal?



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Griff
IMHO, the inner columns wouldn't be affected though because they weren't designed to take any lateral forces to begin with. Also, the inner columns had their own lateral bracing.


By “lateral bracing” are you referring to the horizontal beams? The core did not have any diagonal bracing.

The resistance to wind loads was provided by the exterior walls, not the core.


not that this is relevent, seeing as what's inside the building can't possibly fall faster than what's falling outside the building, but, just for posterity there WAS diagonal bracing, and it can be seen in construction photos. it was on every second or third floor. do i need to post a photo?

anyway, back to the topic of this thread.

faster than freefall.

impossible. only timed explosives can explain the rapid bursts of debris progressing down the tower faster than debris falling through air.

anything else is plain only obfuscation. air ducting in the core can not knock out windows forty to sixty feet away. the only thing that can account for steel shattering(because, as the video shows, steel beams are blown outwards by the bombs), complete pulverisation of the concrete, and faster than freefall progression of destruction down the side of the building, is CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. period, exclamation mark.

howard, what were the published fall times from the brazant zhou paper? did they calculate fall times?
anyway, for anyone who doesn't know, the towers should've taken at least one minute and thirty seconds to fall, if gravity was the only force used to break apart the building, and even that figure has been 'fudged', because in order to get the towers to collapse all the way without being arrested by the lower intact portion, the strength of the steel had to be lowered to unreal levels.

it's just a matter of time, howie, before your shaped cutting charges blow the official lie sky high.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Did i miss something?

Why would demolition cause something to fall faster than free fall?


Explosives do not change the laws of physics.

Does anyone have positive evidence of explosives?

The "official story" being in error does not automatically mean that explosives were used.

Anyone have proof that traces of explosives were found in the debris?



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   
billybob might be interested in reading this?


Does a heavy object exert more downward force then a light object?

Yes - the heavy object exerts more *total* downward force BUT - Gravity does not exert its force on the object as a whole, it exerts its force on each individual sub-atomic particle that makes up the object, simultaneously. (Gravity interacts with the inertial mass of each sub-atomic particles.)

If gravity interacts at the proton-neutron level they will all accelerate at the same rate since they have nearly the same mass and are held tightly together by the strong force. Although the electrons have much less mass they are under the influence of the heavier protons within the atom.

However, if gravity interacts at the 'first generation' quark level they will all have exactly the same "mass-energy" and therefore all accelerate at exactly the same rate of acceleration.

It does not make any difference whether the object has millions of these particles or zillions particles, gravity exerts its force equally on each individual particle. That is why a person in free fall (with no atmosphere) feels nothing. Since gravity is exerting its force on each sub-atomic particle (protons and neutrons or possibly quarks) simultaneously in unison there are no stresses acting on the person. This is what fooled Einstein into thinking that there was no force acting on the falling person.

* Since these particles all have nearly the same mass and are held together by the other primary forces, Gravity exerts an equal amount of force on each one of them, causing all of them to accelerate at the same rate, in unison, no matter which body they happen to be a part of. Gravity is not a special case of acceleration as Newton and Einstein thought.

* Inertia simply requires a specific amount of force be exerted on a body of a specific mass in order to accelerate the body at a specific rate. It is the “elemental particles” that make up the object, not the whole object itself, that is influenced by Gravity.
The Mass/Inertia/Gravity/Weight Relationship.







seekerof



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Did i miss something?

Why would demolition cause something to fall faster than free fall?


Explosives do not change the laws of physics.

Does anyone have positive evidence of explosives?

The "official story" being in error does not automatically mean that explosives were used.

Anyone have proof that traces of explosives were found in the debris?


irrelevent.

demolition is not causing anything to fall faster than freefall. that is not what i am pointing out.
i am pointing out that debris is freefalling beside the building for several floors.
the rate of descent is measurable in this near perfect profile shot of the collapsing tower.
now, the freefalling debris can be used as a yardstick by which to measure freefall(although, there will be air resistance, which varies depending on the size and shape of the debris. HOWEVER....,
we can see many different sizes and shapes of debris all falling at around the same rate, and if someone wants to employ the idea that aluminum panels are relatively light, i would point out that tiny dust paricles are much lighter.
and it is the appearence of dust that 'passes' the freefalling chunks.
now, this does not suggest that the dust actually FELL faster than the freefalling debris, but rather, that it was ejected by an explosion.
the gravity driven collapse THEORY demands that gravity's acceleration is the acceleration limit of the collapse.
therefore, dust cannot accelerate faster than freefall, therefore the appearance of dust below debris that has been freefalling for a storey or two, cannot have 'fallen' there, and must have been blown out, along with the glass and steel, by something besides impacting floors on the inside(especially since we can see that further over from the corner where the squibs are shooting out, the wall is still pristine. where's your pancake, now?).
the debris inside the building must undergo decceleration with each impact, and therefore, the debris inside the building cannot outpace debris on the outside falling through air.

i don't know how many different ways i can say the same thing.




[edit on 1-4-2006 by billybob]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
nevermind

[edit on 1-4-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
we can see many different sizes and shapes of debris all falling at around the same rate, and if someone wants to employ the idea that aluminum panels are relatively light, i would point out that tiny dust paricles are much lighter.
and it is the appearence of dust that 'passes' the freefalling chunks.
now, this does not suggest that the dust actually FELL faster than the freefalling debris, but rather, that it was ejected by an explosion.
the gravity driven collapse THEORY demands that gravity's acceleration is the acceleration limit of the collapse.
[...]
i don't know how many different ways i can say the same thing.


You make this stuff pretty damned clear, BillyBob.
My first WATS of April. XD

If the 'debunkers' are only going to confuse the argument, or argue that more mass somehow means forfeiting acceleration, then we may finally have something that is too blatantly obvious to beat with asinine arguments. And if that is the case, then what I'm wondering if it's even possible at this point for certain people here to realize those buildings didn't come down by gravity alone.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by LeftBehind
So let me get this straight, it starts out faster than "free-fall" and ends up like this?


Yes.

Free fall speeds up, remember. If the collapse was ever a. of free fall, it means other forces at work besides gravity alone.



Hopefully that makes things a little clearer, LB.






wow. somehow i missed this chart the first time through. excellent work, bsbray. thanks for helping clarify.

this is what i'm trying to get people to realise.

what we can see going down the side of the building at a steady rate, is VERTICAL EXPULSIONS of debris. this series of expulsions progresses down the side faster than the debris falling beside the building.

the debris eventually passes the demolition wave, because gravity ACCELERATES things, whereas the timed series of explosions is happening at a STEADY rate.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
The destruction waves race down the sides of the building at a constant rate. Only later does the falling debris actually catch up. Here are two videos which clearly show the effect. (Turn your speaker volume down, the first video is a little loud.)







[edit on 2006-4-22 by wecomeinpeace]


SMR

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
I just wnt to comment on those videos.
That last one is crazy! Please tell me I am not seeing 2 bodies ( live or not I cant tell ) on the sidewalk as people run away.If they are, they surely did not make it through all that debris



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
I just wnt to comment on those videos.
That last one is crazy! Please tell me I am not seeing 2 bodies ( live or not I cant tell ) on the sidewalk as people run away.If they are, they surely did not make it through all that debris


Looking through the frames, I think there may be one person that was sitting up on the ground. I would imagine he got up and started running. The things on the ground before then aren't people, but I couldn't tell you what they are. Probably something the medics were using.


But nonetheless, how can anyone explain the buildings falling a. of the free-falling debris? There's less resistance falling through air than steel; there's no way you can argue against that unless you're hopelessly ignorant. And all mass accelerates at the same rate regardless of how much it weighs, unless there's significant resistance, and that only slows down the acceleration. So I don't want to see Howard coming on here and spewing figures and waving his arms about how heavy the floors were again, as if that has anything at all to do with any of this!

There's no natural accelerating faster than free-fall. It's impossible. What you're looking at is explosives being set off in sequence on each floor at a steady rate, slightly slower than free-fall, but there's no need for acceleration. This should be case closed for any reasonable person, short of some revolution in physics that somehow makes this possible. This was not a natural collapse.

[edit on 22-4-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   
The second video shows 2 puffs of the smoke being debates as explosives. Notice on the 2nd video, about 1/4 into it and below the 'dark' part of the building, there is that smoke coming out looong before the colapse get's there. The other puff happens above and after that one, closer to when the colapse reaches that section. I am with Charlie Sheen when he says, "I have questions..".



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
I just wnt to comment on those videos.
That last one is crazy! Please tell me I am not seeing 2 bodies ( live or not I cant tell ) on the sidewalk as people run away.If they are, they surely did not make it through all that debris


People started jumping well before the collapses happened. If you watch the documentary filmed that day by the brothers, you can hear people hitting the ground, and portions of the building as the firefighters are still in the lobby getting ready to go up into the building.


SMR

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I was more so insinuating that these were injured poeple getting help and once the building started coming down, the 'helpers' lef then to save their own lives.

It looks like maybe I was wrong though.Upon closer look, I think maybe they were just stretchers.They looked like bodies.

I agree about free fall.There is no way a building that damn tall comes down that fast from just a natural fall.In demolition, you want the building(s) to come down as fast as possible so you have a better chance of debris falling in as small a footprint as possible for obvious reasons.
If it falls slow, you have a chance of debris crumbling ever which way creating a larger footprint of debris.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Really guys...you bury yourselves more and more with every claim that you two make...

You are trying to claim that just because "dust", which is what billybob is pointing at to the right of the picture, is moving faster than a large piece of debris, speed which was increased by the pressure waves from the collpasing floors, shows that there were explosives?....

You two are really desperate to make such a claim...

Of course pressure waves are going to push dust at a faster speed than a large piece of debris.... Dust does not have enough resistance against pressure waves caused by the falling floors to move just at freefall speed....


[edit on 23-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Please expound upon these pressure waves of yours.


Do you mean the force the falling material would've had upon the surrounding air?



Btw, for those of you that still believe the official story, would you say that Muaddib's post just now is a good representation of what you think about this? Because none of the rest of you have been responding, and I would assume that you wouldn't just ignore this information because you just don't want to agree with it. But I know that Muaddib can go on about these downward-forcing "pressure waves" from material falling via gravity all day.

[edit on 23-4-2006 by bsbray11]


SMR

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Pressure waves are the new fad among some skeptics

Why wont any of these pressure wave guys show us? I want to see examples and compared to the towers.I want to see data.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Really guys...you bury yourselves more and more with every claim that you two make...

You are trying to claim that just because "dust", which is what billybob is pointing at to the right of the picture, is moving faster than a large piece of debris, speed which was increased by the pressure waves from the collpasing floors, shows that there were explosives?....

You two are really desperate to make such a claim...

Of course pressure waves are going to push dust at a faster speed than a large piece of debris.... Dust does not have enough resistance against pressure waves caused by the falling floors to move just at freefall speed....


yeah, that's right. i started a whole new wave of memos which circulated throughout division five. 'pressure waves' would be caused by the collapse, and do not accelerate a. of it.

there is still no way that air being pushed by floors which are impacting other floors every twelve ft., can outpace freefalling debris.
physics never was your strong point. you should leave the obfuscation of this PROOF to the likes of the once mighty howard.

the dust which you claim that i claim 'falls', is not falling at all. it is being blown out by explosives that line the edge of the tower. i agree with you LITERALLY that a 'pressure wave' is causing this. it's just that it is caused by bombs, and not pancakes.
as a pointof PROOF of this, the expulsion is SPHERICAL, and floors are FLAT. capiche?

was the reference to burying ourselves a threat? the more spot on accurate we get in PROVING that the towers were blown, the more likely that a 'mugger' is going to shoot us in the . twice?

bury this. heaven awaits for the pure of heart.

[edit on 23-4-2006 by billybob]



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Please expound upon these pressure waves of yours.


Do you mean the force the falling material would've had upon the surrounding air?


You don't know what pressure waves are either?...

Perhaps you should be reading more on physics...or going back to school to graduate from high school would do you good too, then try college physics if your mind can comprehend that much information.

The last time we were discussing physics you could not comprehend how it was possible for sound to reach a distance over a mile after one of the towers collapse...despite me trying to explain to you how it is possible you could not understand....

Ok, so let's show you what pressure waves are...


P-waves, and called pressure waves, are longitudinal waves, i.e., the oscillation occurs in the same direction (and opposite) the direction of wave propagation. The restoring force for P-waves is provided by the medium's bulk modulus. In an elastic medium with rigidity , a harmonic plane wave has the form......


scienceworld.wolfram.com...

Sound is an example of a pressure wave....


Lesson 1: The Nature of a Sound Wave
Sound is a Pressure Wave
Sound is a mechanical wave which results from the longitudinal motion of the particles of the medium through which the sound wave is moving. If a sound wave is moving from left to right through air, then particles of air will be displaced both rightward and leftward as the energy of the sound wave passes through it. The motion of the particles parallel (and anti-parallel) to the direction of the energy transport is what characterizes sound as a longitudinal wave.


www.glenbrook.k12.il.us...

So, want to keep laughing your butt off and remain as ignorant as ever, clearly showing you don't know what you are talking about, or do you really want to learn something?....

BTW pressure waves converge and form what is known as a shockwave, but perhaps this is too much information for you...


[edit on 24-4-2006 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join