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: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 02:45 AM
link   
First off,


Originally posted by Muaddib
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....


I'm going to ask you to back that up with links to the posts you're talking about, because I absolutely do not remember ever arguing anything like that.


Now I want you to post information on the "pressure waves" you're saying pushed debris faster than the body you're claiming they were coming from. Let me repeat that again: You are suggesting that "pressure waves" from the falling building (GRAVITY) were pushing debris downward faster than free-fall (GRAVITY).

I want information on THAT, not sound waves. Neither of the waves you've just referenced have anything to do with the forces you're suggesting. Try again buddy.




posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

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 ahead of it.


Really?...then you know even less about physics than i though you knew...

The only way that any object would surpass pressure waves (such as sound) would be if such object was travelling faster than the speed of sound.....


In the movie above you see that as long as the aircraft travels slower than the speed of sound the pressure waves move out ahead of the aircraft. This is the source of energy which causes the up-wash, responsible for induced drag, we discussed in a previous chapter.

selair.selkirk.bc.ca...

You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper in your own acknoledge ignorance about a subject which you know nothing about yet you are trying to use to back your wild claims.....



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
................

I want information on THAT, not sound waves. Neither of the waves you've just referenced have anything to do with the forces you're suggesting. Try again buddy.


All pressure waves travel at the speed of sound....btw, there is only one kind of pressure wave, but the speed of pressure waves can change a bit due to temperature.

One more thing, pressure waves and sound are interrelated, since sound is produced by pressure making air molecules vibrate, which is the definition of sound.


Pressure waves travel out at the speed of sound. The speed of sound depends on air temperature, as mentioned above.

selair.selkirk.bc.ca...

More and more you keep showing that you don't know what you are talking about BSRay, the same goes for your friend Billybob.


[edit on 24-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
....................
Let me repeat that again: You are suggesting that "pressure waves" from the falling building (GRAVITY) were pushing debris downward faster than free-fall (GRAVITY).

I want information on THAT, not sound waves. Neither of the waves you've just referenced have anything to do with the forces you're suggesting. Try again buddy.


Are you suggesting that the debris from the collapsing towers were travelling faster than the speed of sound?....

That's the only way that any object can surpass the speed of pressure waves....

Here is some more information on pressure waves for your perusal..


Pressure Waves and Shockwaves
As any object moves through the atmosphere is creates pressure waves. These are simply small disturbances caused by forcing air molecules closer together. These disturbances are then transmitted through the atmosphere, just like waves passing energy through the ocean. You hear a person's voice, for instance, as a result of pressure waves traveling through the air from their mouth to your ear. (It is important to realize that the energy, in the form of waves, moves from the mouth to your ears, but the actual air molecules in the persons mouth do not enter your ear.)

Pressure waves travel out at the speed of sound. The speed of sound depends on air temperature, as mentioned above.

selair.selkirk.bc.ca...

As I said, you guys keep digging the graves of your own theories with your made up physics laws...

[edit on 24-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I'm going to ask you to back that up with links to the posts you're talking about, because I absolutely do not remember ever arguing anything like that.
..............


You actually want me to spend an hour or two trying to find a thread in which you clearly show you do not understand the basics of physics, sound waves and the speed of sound?...

Why should I spend time doing so, when in this same thread you show you don't understand it?....



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Muaddib, why is it that every debate you enter into, you have to immediately start with the snipes, vitriol, and allusions to other people's inferior intellect. There really is no need for it, man. I know you feel strongly about this issue, but do you seriously think you're going to convince anyone of your arguments by taking this nasty, superior attitude? Try to play nice, dude. Please? And I'm speaking as a member here, not as a moderator. I'm sure we can debate without tearing each other's throats apart.


=======================
Now, you've not made it crystal clear what your theory is here, but if I understand you correctly then there's a couple of problems with that which you posit.

Firstly, you assert that the destruction waves ahead of the debris are the result of "pressure waves" traveling at the speed of sound. If that is the case, then I ask you: Why did the destruction waves travel at much less than the speed of sound? The building is 417m tall, and the speed of sound at sea level is 340.29 ms^-1, so your pressure wave should have reached the ground in just above 1.2 seconds, even less considering it started at the collapse point and not the top of the structure

Secondly, I think you misunderstand exactly what a pressure wave is. You seem to imply that the expulsion of debris and dust is a result of air traveling down through the structure, via this "pressure wave". However, a pressure wave is simply repeating alternations in pressure, from high to low. The pressure variation travels, but that does not imply that the medium through which the wave is traveling actually flows in any particular direction.



The particles of the medium are displaced slightly longitudinally yet equally in both directions as the wave passes through, coming to rest in their original position once the wave has passed. The principle was even spelt out in one of your own links:


selair.selkirk.bc.ca...
You hear a person's voice, for instance, as a result of pressure waves traveling through the air from their mouth to your ear. (It is important to realize that the energy, in the form of waves, moves from the mouth to your ears, but the actual air molecules in the persons mouth do not enter your ear.)


The pressure waves caused by the collapse did indeed travel at the speed of sound...and they struck the microphone of the camera to register as sound in the films I posted.


Thirdly, assuming that you are going to drop the pressure wave bit and simply state that the explosive expulsions are the result of air actually traveling down through the structure, pressurized (different to a pressure wave, btw) and pushed down by the falling cap, then how do you explain the pulverization of the concrete into clouds of dust and the expulsion of the exterior column covers, and possibly even columns? Where did all this mass of energy come from? Are you seriously suggesting that pressurized air can pulverize masses of concrete into flour and maybe even rip apart steel columns? How many PSI do you think one would need to achieve such an effect? The mind boggles...

Completely disregarding the expelled solid debris for a moment, and simultaneously predicting your next argument, if you're going to suggest that the expelled dust was from the collapse zone above, then how do you suppose such gargantuan masses of dust were squooshed through the HVAC system and stairwells, the complete cross-section area of which only comprised about 8% of the floor space of one floor? And how do you explain that such dust and pressure didn't simply follow the path of least resistance and blow out sideways, which is in fact what was clearly observed?

Please explain your theory a little more and in much greater detail so we can surmise exactly what you are proposing here. And perhaps compose it all into one post instead of five in a row for ease of digestion, so to speak.


[edit on 2006-4-24 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
wow. you showed me, muaddib.

LOL!

if they were actually 'pressure waves', and not just 'pressurised air'(sorry, if i didn't KNOW there was a distinction between the two), then they could only have been caused by bombs. do a little more research.
a buildup of air pressure ahead of collapsing debris is not a 'pressure wave' travelling faster than sound, OMG! are you saying if you hold something flat, and drop it, that waves of pressure travelling faster than sound are going to come out from underneath it as it falls?

you really should leave it alone, muaddib, as once again you've shown that your grasp of science is virtually nil. i don't intend this as an insult, but rather as a statement of fact.
i suggest you stick to politics where there are no real laws that must be obeyed.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Muaddib, why is it that every debate you enter into, you have to immediately start with the snipes, vitriol, and allusions to other people's inferior intellect. There really is no need for it, man. I know you feel strongly about this issue, but do you seriously think you're going to convince anyone of your arguments by taking this nasty, superior attitude? Try to play nice, dude. Please? And I'm speaking as a member here, not as a moderator. I'm sure we can debate without tearing each other's throats apart.



Then perhaps you should tell BSray and Billybob that if they don't want to be made fools, they better don't try to belittle me. I don't start fights, I finish them when people are condescending, belittling, and to top it off they don't know what they are talking about...

But for some reason you did not say anything to them for trying to be smart*****....



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
You are right, I should have added a reminder to all as well.

Now can we all play nice?

=======================================

Do you see now see the point about the destruction waves? Or can you perhaps detail your theory some more?

[edit on 2006-4-24 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
.....................

The particles of the medium are displaced slightly longitudinally yet equally in both directions as the wave passes through, coming to rest in their original position once the wave has passed. The principle was even spelt out in one of your own links:


selair.selkirk.bc.ca...
You hear a person's voice, for instance, as a result of pressure waves traveling through the air from their mouth to your ear. (It is important to realize that the energy, in the form of waves, moves from the mouth to your ears, but the actual air molecules in the persons mouth do not enter your ear.)


The pressure waves caused by the collapse did indeed travel at the speed of sound...and they struck the microphone of the camera to register as sound in the films I posted.


That's because of the interrelation between pressure waves and mechanical waves.

Mechanical waves are waves which travel through different mediums, such as air, which is called air wave, or the medium of water, which is called water wave.

But the name itself pressure wave should give you a clue that there is more than just energy (wave) interaction.

There is a difference between the vocal cords vibrating, hence making sounds, and an object falling down, flying, driving etc, etc. Even to make your vocal cords work, you need to exhale some air which will cause your vocal cords to vibrate back and forth, which in itself will affect air molecules (which are particles/physical manifestations)

You probably have noticed many times as you travel down a road, that when a truck, or another car is behind you and it gets closer to you at a higher speed than your car is travelling, you will feel a push/drag effect in your car, then as the car/truck passes you the disturbance hits you on the side pushing your car with greater force.

When an object is falling, there is the same effect, and when the top half of a building is falling down, with tons of debris, this creates a disturbance in the air by the pressure the falling debris is creating against air molecules. They both are interrelated. Pressure is a physical force which affects the physical realm as well as energy. (soundwaves)

i am not saying that only pressure waves/mechanical waves were the reason for all that dust blowing out. When two large masses crash against each other, depending on what king of material the two objects are made of as for example any type of soft rock, if enough force is exerted when both bodies crash against each other there will be large clouds of dust being ejected from both bodies. Remember that the WTC weren't made out of steel only, they had fireproof and other material which pulverized as the top of the buildings crashed agaisnt the bottom floors.


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Thirdly, assuming that you are going to drop the pressure wave bit and simply state that the explosive expulsions are the result of air actually traveling down through the structure, pressurized (different to a pressure wave, btw) and pushed down by the falling cap,


They are both interrelated, a falling object causes pressure against air molecules, which is a physical manifestation, which in turn affects waves. (energy)



Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
then how do you explain the pulverization of the concrete into clouds of dust and the expulsion of the exterior column covers, and possibly even columns? Where did all this mass of energy come from? Are you seriously suggesting that pressurized air can pulverize masses of concrete into flour and maybe even rip apart steel columns? How many PSI do you think one would need to achieve such an effect? The mind boggles...


You forget that there were tons upon tons of debris falling against the floors below. Not all the debris was pulverized. Steel frames don't pulverize when a building collapses, they buckle.


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Completely disregarding the expelled solid debris for a moment, and simultaneously predicting your next argument, if you're going to suggest that the expelled dust was from the collapse zone above, then how do you suppose such gargantuan masses of dust were squooshed through the HVAC system and stairwells, the complete cross-section area of which only comprised about 8% of the floor space of one floor? And how do you explain that such dust and pressure didn't simply follow the path of least resistance and blow out sideways, which is in fact what was clearly observed?


The pulverized debris was most probably the fireproofing, which was stripped from the floors which were hit by the planes and as each floor collapsed by the tons of debris falling on top of the lower floors more fireproofing was pulverized. Also if you would have noticed in the videos and pictures of that day, there was debris bigger than dust particles also all over.

You should also remember that that skyscrapper had mostly office supplies, many which burned and turned to ash, which was also part of the dust/ash that covered the surrounding areas.

BTW we are talking about a skyscrapper here. Skyscrappers don't have regular windows, they have shock resistant windows, because of the high winds at that altitude. I have even seen smaller buildings have shock resistant windows.

Some of the windows seemed to have exploded from the pressurized air going down as we saw in some of the pictures. But it didn't happen to all. The pressurized air, caused by the debris falling down, wasn't strong enough to blow all the windows, just some. Also, it is very possible that those windows were hit by some of the debris which was falling down, which would make it easier for the air to come out those windows.

If there would have been explosives, every window in that section of the building would have blown out. Whether or not they were shock resistant.



Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Please explain your theory a little more and in much greater detail so we can surmise exactly what you are proposing here. And perhaps compose it all into one post instead of five in a row for ease of digestion, so to speak.


Many times have I explained what I just said above, but people, nomatter what evidence is brought up, will think whatever they want to think. That is a fact.

BTW, if BSRay and Billybob were as civil as you were in this post, I would not have resorted to the same tactics they used.

[edit on 24-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
well, despite all you typing, you're still wrong, muaddib.

you want a pressure wave going faster than sound, you will need the physical object to travel at the speed of sound. there would be an increase in velocity for air forced between floors, but there were many elevator shafts for the air to escape through(as is constantly pointed out by government lie supporters), so it would not 'choose' to break apart windows, but would take the path of least resistance, i.e up and out.

the FACT remains that the dust blowing out the side of the tower, that i circled, appears ahead of something that has been freefalling on the outside of the building for a few(at least two or three, maybe four) floors. there is other things in the same frame that i could have circled, like the similiar piece of (presumably) aluminum/silver cladding, that is being violently blown outwards with other debris AHEAD of the collapse wave, and in fact is a synchronized, or perhaps the same, bomb causing it. also note that the puff i circled is MANY floors below what is still intact on the same building face, ie, NO PANCAKES could cause this. and that is just one still. it is only a matter of time.

i note that the 911 (c)ommission's OFFICIAL PUBLISHED(page 305) falltime for the south tower is 10 seconds. 9.2 seconds is freefall IN A VACUUM!



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
well, despite all you typing, you're still wrong, muaddib.

you want a pressure wave going faster than sound, you will need the physical object to travel at the speed of sound.


Sorry to break your party but all pressure waves travel at the speed of sound....the object doesn't have to travel at the speed of sound for pressure waves to acquire their normal speed... The only thing that changes the speed of pressure waves is temperature, and medium, such as water, but the speed of the pressure waves would still be a lot faster than most falling objects, except maybe a meteor, or a supersonic aircraft travelling faster than the speed of sound.



Originally posted by billybob
there would be an increase in velocity for air forced between floors, but there were many elevator shafts for the air to escape through(as is constantly pointed out by government lie supporters), so it would not 'choose' to break apart windows, but would take the path of least resistance, i.e up and out.


Lie supporters?....Please and you want people to believe your exagerations and complete lies? Air is a gas, and as a gas it doesn't just take one path of least resistance, for example if a butane tank explodes inside a room in a house, with the windows of that room closed, and the door open, a lot of the gas will simply break the window and go out that way...the gas won't just go out the door....like you seem to be implying.



Originally posted by billybob
the FACT remains that the dust blowing out the side of the tower, that i circled, appears ahead of something that has been freefalling on the outside of the building for a few(at least two or three, maybe four) floors. there is other things in the same frame that i could have circled, like the similiar piece of (presumably) aluminum/silver cladding, that is being violently blown outwards with other debris AHEAD of the collapse wave, and in fact is a synchronized, or perhaps the same, bomb causing it. also note that the puff i circled is MANY floors below what is still intact on the same building face, ie, NO PANCAKES could cause this. and that is just one still. it is only a matter of time.


The fact remains that the air in such a building will move dust faster than any object would fall....there were more certainly partial collapses inside the towers, which you can't see, as one floor collapses on top of the other the dust goes everywhere, and much faster than any of your freefalling objects could possibly go.

The air that was still trapped in the floors below the collapsing floors is pushed to the sides and downwards, and since all windows are closed, the most immediate way out is through the sides where holes are opened as the walls fall, and downwards, although some windows seem to have been broken, as I said before, possibly because debris also hit those shock resistant windows. As i said before, air is a gas and it expands...it doesn't necessarily take only one path of least resistance, some of it might even have gone up, but not as much as you seem to imply it should have done.



Originally posted by billybob
i note that the 911 (c)ommission's OFFICIAL PUBLISHED(page 305) falltime for the south tower is 10 seconds. 9.2 seconds is freefall IN A VACUUM!


When tons upon tons of debris fall on top of floors which were not built to withstand those loads, and as the mass of falling debris keeps adding up, the floors below will offer less resistance, because you have an increase in the amount of debris falling as each floor subsequently collapses and adds mass to the falling debris.

BTW, it is very possible that Tower 1 could have survived the hit by the plane and the damage caused by the fires, if the fall of Tower 2 did not create an earthquake, and yes that many tons of debris falling on a street does cause earthquakes, this precipitated the collapse of an already weakened Tower 1.

Tower 2 fell first, because as many of you did not even noticed and this I have explained before, the second tower was hit at least 12 floor lower than the first, adding a greater load to the weakened structure.

I can't remember who exactly made the following claim, but I also remember one of you claim in the past, that the noise that was heard from the collapsing towers was too great, and that the potential energy of the falling debris would have lost much of that potential energy as it was transformed into sound. (or something along those lines) That is completly untrue, and I explained this before too. Sound is not caused by transformation of potential energy from any object, sound is the effect from the interaction between pressure and air molecules, no great amount of potential energy is lost from the falling debris to generate sound/noise.

[edit on 24-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
You actually want me to spend an hour or two trying to find a thread in which you clearly show you do not understand the basics of physics, sound waves and the speed of sound?...


Either find it or stop asserting it, because I'm telling you that it doesn't exist. Either that wasn't me you were arguing with, or you're confused about the argument itself.

And you're totally ignoring this to make your theory work:


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
The particles of the medium are displaced slightly longitudinally yet equally in both directions as the wave passes through, coming to rest in their original position once the wave has passed. The principle was even spelt out in one of your own links:


selair.selkirk.bc.ca...
You hear a person's voice, for instance, as a result of pressure waves traveling through the air from their mouth to your ear. (It is important to realize that the energy, in the form of waves, moves from the mouth to your ears, but the actual air molecules in the persons mouth do not enter your ear.)


That's assuming that you're trying to say the "pressure waves" were moving debris through the air ahead of the collapse. That's what I was assuming you meant from the start. I hope you don't mean that the jolt from the building collapsing caused vibrations in the building that shot out pulverized material into the air, but those are the only two pseudo-logical things I can think of that you'd be trying to say, without reading through these long posts, which would imo be a waste of my time.

Your response to what I quoted of WCIP above isn't very logical.


There is a difference between the vocal cords vibrating, hence making sounds, and an object falling down, flying, driving etc, etc. Even to make your vocal cords work, you need to exhale some air which will cause your vocal cords to vibrate back and forth, which in itself will affect air molecules (which are particles/physical manifestations)


Here you identify two different events, exhaling and vibrating vocal cords, as though the vibration causes the exhaling instead of the other way around.

This would have to be the case to relate to what you're suggestion of the WTC, because you're saying the vibrations caused the expulsions. So then don't make comparisons to the vocal cords and expect it to sound logical.


You probably have noticed many times as you travel down a road, that when a truck, or another car is behind you and it gets closer to you at a higher speed than your car is travelling, you will feel a push/drag effect in your car, then as the car/truck passes you the disturbance hits you on the side pushing your car with greater force.


This is because the vehicles are displacing air, not because they're sending out pressure waves that push air at you at the speed of sound.


When an object is falling, there is the same effect,


Exactly, which is why what you're suggesting doesn't make any sense. The air couldn't have been displaced faster than the building was falling.

As WCIP just posted, pressure waves travel through matter; they don't move it.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Muaddib, you only seem to be confusing the issue, and yourself. You've changed your stance so many times, mixing the occasional fact with random nonsense. Once minute you're saying that it's fireproofing and ash shooting out, and then you state that it was simply the floors colliding with each other and pulverizing the concrete. One minute you're saying it's a pressure wave travelling ahead of the collapse, the next you state that pressure waves always travel at the speed of sound. You've confused the high pressure area in front of and the low pressure region behind a moving object with a pressure wave. I can't make sense of your posts, and I seriously doubt if you can either. I just can't be bothered going on with this.

The simple fact is, the destruction waves raced down the side of the building in perfect confluence and faster than the actual collapse itself, pulverizing the concrete in a violently explosive manner. Air, pressurized or not, is not going to do that, no matter how you spin it. The only thing that has come anywhere close to explaining this phenomenon is explosives. So until an alternative explanation is raised that fits the bill better, while certainly far from proven, explosives seems to be the leading hypothesis.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Confusing myself? not really, and you are telling me that I change my stance when it is you together with billyboib and bsray that keep changing your stories everytime you are proven wrong?....

The three of you seem to believe for some reason that it is only possible for one cause for the collapse of the WTC, when the fact remains that several reasons made the towers collapse....

i have seen you three go from there were no firefighters in the towers after 11 am or such nonesense, and that this was proof of the government being involved in the 9/11 attacks... When evidence was presented that there were firefighters there until much later that afternoon, you jump to one other theory or another, which does not make sense at all...

You want people to believe that it is not possible when buildings such as the WTC are hit by planes weakening the structures, the explosions of the planes as they hit the towers sent shockwaves throughout the buildings and to other buildings around weakening them even more, then the building caught fire, of course, because of the fuel of those planes and the flammable material present in such buildings. (or anything else I might have forgotten to include in here...)

As one tower collapsed it caused the equivalent of an earthquake which weakened even more tower 1 and WTC7, yet you people want to claim that the seismic reading of the towers collapsing can only be explosives because according to you all it can't be anything else... Then you claim that the towers collapsing couldn't have made so much sound and cause so much devastation since, potential energy in the buildings are not infinite, another weak argument since you don't need infinite potential energy to cause the devastation we saw in 9/11, and other really senseless excuses the three of you want to give trying to back your theory....

So please, do not tell me that I am changing what i am saying, because i am not.... I always stated that there were several reasons for the collapse of the buildings, only the three of you want to claim that one thing only could have caused the buildings to collapse...

BTW, you are also trying to tell me that I am wrong because I forgot to mention this time around that part of the dust which we can see was also concrete?.... Really, you have to be desperate to make such argument.... of course there was concrete in the towers....of course there was fireproofing in the towers....(and whatever other material i might have left out)

I just can't believe it... Now your argument is that i dind't mention concrete this time around?... or i forgot to mention something i said before?....

One more thing, it appears to me that the three of you seem to think that nature should be following your opinion and that it is impossible for several causes to be the reason for the collapse, or the reason why there was so much dust/concrete/fireproofing/and whatever else was in those buildings....

I guess according to the three of you there is only one law in nature and if anything else happens it must be the government who is behind what happened....

i guess the three of you believe that only one thing can happen at a time and there is no way for several things to occur at once.... Really, that argument is weak to say the least....

---edited to add comment---

[edit on 25-4-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 09:19 PM
link   
"nothing recognizable", -eyewitness from clean-up.

so, what happened to the 110 acres of industrial carpet?
this is an excellent point from a bright fellow who hangs out at the physorg forum.
ever try and pulverize industrial carpet AND four inch thick concrete, AND steel reinforced concrete in the core with ONE STROKE of 'the hammer'?
good luck on your mission, logical jim NIST's.

a matter of time.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
you really should leave it alone, muaddib, as once again you've shown that your grasp of science is virtually nil. i don't intend this as an insult, but rather as a statement of fact.
i suggest you stick to politics where there are no real laws that must be obeyed.


i agree.
what causes a pressure wave, in your own words, dibby? not a leaping-link of logic, but something that proves you understand what you're talking about.
please describe how the conditions are met which create these speed of sound pressure waves during the collapse.
i invite howard or off the street or valhall to fill us in with some technical mojo.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
i have seen you three go from there were no firefighters in the towers after 11 am or such nonesense


On top of what's already been raised by others, I don't particularly like the way you keep asserting that we've said things that we really haven't. At least I know that I haven't been saying anything about firefighters out of the "towers" after 11 AM (which doesn't make sense anyway as they were both collapsed by then, unless you mean WTC7 which wasn't one of the Twin Towers), just as I'm sure that I was never arguing that sound can't travel a few miles or whatever you were asserting earlier.

If you have something against what one of us has argued in the past, then alright, but can you at least (a) not constantly group everyone together, and (b) make sure you're sure of what you're saying in the first place.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by billybob
you really should leave it alone, muaddib, as once again you've shown that your grasp of science is virtually nil. i don't intend this as an insult, but rather as a statement of fact.
i suggest you stick to politics where there are no real laws that must be obeyed.


i agree.


Wow, you agree with yourself?......

That's a first.....

Billybob, don't try to blame on me your lack of knowledge of science....

Even after I gave a link from a physics site, which obviously you did not bothered to read, you claimed that "in order for an object to produce pressure waves the object must travel at the speed of sound"....

You killed your argument right there and then...

Here is some more info which destroys your statement, and shows who is ignorant in this topic...


....................
As pressure waves they travel at the speed of sound. Typical speeds are 330 m/s in air, 1450 m/s in water and about 5000 m/s in granite. P waves are sometimes called "elastic P waves".


en.wikipedia.org...

So take your own advice and leave it alone billyboy, you obviously don't have any idea of what you are talking about. BTW, i don't intent this as an insult, it is simply the truth.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
wow. you showed me, muaddib.

LOL!

if they were actually 'pressure waves', and not just 'pressurised air'(sorry, if i didn't KNOW there was a distinction between the two), then they could only have been caused by bombs. do a little more research.
................


Here we have it again....when you don't understand and you don't know anything about a topic you are discussing (in this case 9/11)...you immediately claim "it could only be caused by bombs or explosives".....and then you tell me to do research?.....



Really billybob....you are killing yourself over and over....

Let's see if it is true that pressure waves are only caused by "bombs" shall we?.....

Pressure waves occur when an object exerts enough compression or "pressure" against a medium (such as water or air) or another object, this forces air molecules to get closer together, which causes a disturbance which is transmitted through the medium/object.

Now, lets see what some real experts have to say about air pressure waves during the collapse of the towers....

BTW, what they say does corroborate what I am saying, except that these experts don't think the earthquakes caused by the collapse of Tower 2 was the cause of the collapse of tower 1, but rather that the air pressure waves released by the falling debris were the cause of the collapse of the other buildings.

First time that I read this btw, but at least it shows that i know what I am talking about....not like some other people...

The information on the link is very interesting.


Damage to Buildings Near WTC Caused by Falling Debris and Air Pressure Wave, Columbia Seismologists Report

By Abigail Beshkin



On September 11, seismographs operated by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, recorded seismic signals produced by the impacts of the two aircraft hitting the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and the Towers' subsequent collapse. While the ground shaking was consistent with the energy released by small earthquakes, it was not sufficient to cause the collapse of or damage to the surrounding buildings, as some have thought. Rather, the buildings around the Twin Towers were impacted both by the kinetic energy of falling debris and by the pressure exerted on the buildings by a dust- and particle-laden blast produced by the collapse.

Writing in the November 20 issue of Eos, published by the American Geophysical Union, seismologists from Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory outline the sequence of seismographic recordings on that tragic day, and argue that vibrations recorded on September 11 were of a magnitude thought to be too low to cause structural damage to buildings, especially in the northeast region of the United States.

However, the authors add that because there were no seismographic stations in or even near the World Trade Center, it is impossible to know for sure that the ground-shaking did not have any impact on the neighboring buildings. Ultimately, they say, urban officials should consider the importance of placing seismographic stations in high-density urban areas.

"Our recordings were made at considerable distance," said Won-Young Kim, who is in charge of seismological network operations for Lamont-Doherty. "However, plans are pending for an Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) that calls for placing seismic instruments in such urban areas as New York City. The tragic events of September 11 show that such instrumentation can serve a purpose that sometimes transcends strict earthquake applications."


www.columbia.edu...

Here is the most interesting part of that link.


"The energy contained in the amount of fuel combusted was the equivalent to the energy released by 240 tons of TNT," said Lerner-Lam. "This energy was absorbed by the buildings and produced the observed fireballs, but did not immediately cause the collapse. During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage— but not causing significant ground shaking."

Seismographic recordings of the tower collapses were recorded in five states, as far away as 428 kilometers [266 miles] in Lisbon, New Hampshire. Lamont's home station, in Palisades, New York, is located above the Hudson River, 34 kilometers [21 miles] from downtown Manhattan, where the towers stood. The aircraft impacts registered local magnitude (ML) 0.9 and 0.7, indicating minimal earth shaking as a result. The subsequent collapse of the towers, on the contrary, registered magnitudes of 2.1 and 2.3, comparable to the small earthquake that occurred beneath the east side of Manhattan on January 17, 2001.

The Lamont seismographs established the following timeline: 8:46:26 a.m. EDT [1240 UTC] Aircraft impact - north tower, Magnitude 0.9; 9:02:54 a.m. EDT [1302 UTC] Aircraft impact - south tower, Magnitude 0.7; 9:59:04 a.m. EDT [1359 UTC] Collapse - south tower, Magnitude 2.1; 10:28:31 a.m. EDT [1428 UTC] Collapse - north tower, Magnitude 2.3.

In addition, the seismic waves were short-period surface waves, meaning they traveled within the upper few kilometers of the Earth's crust. They were caused by the interaction between the ground and the building foundation, which transmits the energy from the impacts and the collapses.

The authors also noted that as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to that of a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material move in a dust/mud matrix down the volcano's slope. The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures common in volcanic flows.


Excerpted from above link.

So read up, and learn some real science billybob...

[edit on 26-4-2006 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join