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: 8
3
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Free falling objects do not change velocity unless they encounter air resistance or hit something.


Absolutely false. The free-falling objects in this case began their falls with no downward velocity, and then positively accelerated downwards.

Do you seriously think that free-falling objects do not accelerate?


The Towers did not fall at free fall.


Will you stop with this? WE ARE NOT ARGUING THIS, AND HAVEN'T BEEN. If you really did understand our argument then you wouldn't be repeating this every other sentence!


The fact remains that the freefalling debris hit the ground faster than the non free falling building.


This is another illustration that you do not understand the argument.


What you think is proving your point, is actually debris falling from different heights.


Explain how this could possibly support your position in this issue.


And that puff of debris could very well be a blast of debris being forced out below the collapse, while not being the main part of the collapse.


The amount of compressed gas at this point in the collapse, even if all of the previous floors gas had been forced directly onto the floor below for some physically impossible reason, would not have been great enough to cause any expulsions.

If you argue that the collapse itself did this then you are contradicting your own attempt at refuting our point.

You're not making sense, LB, and I really don't think you get the argument even now, especially since you keep repeating that the buildings did not fall at free fall speed, and reference debris hitting the ground first. If you understood the argument you'd realize how off-topic and irrelevant that information is. Take it from me -- BillyBob will tell you himself that I'm getting what he's saying.




posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I understand what you guys are trying to point out.


why do you constantly misconstrue it, then? i am talking about a single event that happened over 1/15th of a second.


Originally posted by LeftBehindHowever none of proves demolition.


i of course, completely disagree.


Originally posted by LeftBehindFree falling objects do not change velocity unless they encounter air resistance or hit something.


you know the difference between velocity and acceleration? cause, it seems you got left behind on that lesson, too.


Originally posted by LeftBehindThe Towers did not fall at free fall.


agreed.


Originally posted by LeftBehindThe whole premise that they were faster than free fall is ludicrous and you guys know it.


i NEVER said that anything 'fell' faster than freefall, and you know it. you are simply trying to obfuscate the argument with a strawman. i will repeat once again.....
the debris outside is being accelrated by gravity.
the debris inside is being deccelerated by momentum transfers(if it really is just falling debris causing the inside to break apart).
and yet, the debris ejections in the second frame, are coming out ahead of debris that has been freefalling(and accelerating wildly) for several stories. this is what is 'faster than freefall'. the progress of dust ejections from inside.


Originally posted by LeftBehindThe fact remains that the freefalling debris hit the ground faster than the non free falling building.


the fact remains, that the event we are discussing happens over the course of 1/15th of a second, and not the entire collapse.


Originally posted by LeftBehindYour graph means nothing when reality disagrees with you.


uh, huh.



this picture is labelled wrong. everything that is falling is in freefall. the upper part has only begun accelerating, and the lower part is going much faster, having accelerated for tens of stories.



Originally posted by LeftBehindYou are misenterpreting the video.


you are a poor judge of physics.


Originally posted by LeftBehindHere is the video you claim shows proof of demolition.

www.plaguepuppy.net...

What you think is proving your point, is actually debris falling from different heights.


no, the dust explosion out the side is not 'falling'. it is exploding.


Originally posted by LeftBehindAnd that puff of debris could very well be a blast of debris being forced out below the collapse, while not being the main part of the collapse.

In which case it totally invalidates your "faster-than-freefall" theory, not that physics and the evidence doesn't do that already.


how could it accelerate ahead of the outside freefalling debris, when the resistance inside the building is huge, and the resistance on the outside is virtually zero? if gravity is driving the collapse, than nothing would be able to happen down the inside of the building at a faster acceleration than gravity's. not even amazing air puffs.
you remind of muaddib. you just have no idea about physics, and are not even arguing the point. it is totally obvious to anyone who does know.



posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Look guys I understand your argument, I was a little drunk when I posted last, so please forgive my simple mistakes.

The fact of the matter is that you really can't tell what is going on in that video. The part you claim to be "the collapse" could very well be a "squib". Now it is possible that they placed explosives on every perimeter column on every floor, but strangely you guys have been silent on how this would be possible.

How were the buildings rigged with explosives?

I know which explanation makes sense to me.

You are basically counting a "squib" as the collapse.

It would be the same if you said that this pic was proof of demolition.



Now, I know you guys already think thats proof.

However if you tried to get us to believe that the "squib" was the collapse, and since that squib is showing up below the debris, that therefore the collapse is faster than freefall at that point, most of us would say that's pretty ridiculous.

This is exactly what you guys are claiming is happening in this vid.

www.plaguepuppy.net...

However due to most of what is happening being obscured, you can post grainy gifs, and homemade charts and at least convince yourselves.

Am I claiming I know exactly what is happening in that video. No, I have a reasonably good idea, though.

And my scenario seems more likely to me than someone sneaking into the towers and planting explosives on every perimeter column on every floor.

But, that's just me.




posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Look guys I understand your argument, I was a little drunk when I posted last, so please forgive my simple mistakes.


cheers. i've been hammered ALL YEAR, lol!



Originally posted by LeftBehindYou are basically counting a "squib" as the collapse.

It would be the same if you said that this pic was proof of demolition.



Now, I know you guys already think thats proof.


no. it is very compelling evidence. just because i can't think of an alternate explanation, does not mean that one does not exist. for example, i don't KNOW that there wasn't a suicide bomber standing beside the window, whom pulled the plug when he realised something huge was happening.
i find preplanted explosives a much better explanation, in light of the fact that nothing presented so far explains the ejection of dust below the collapse front.
i would TOTALLY consider a PLAUSIBLE alternative explanantion, if one were to be given.
frankly, i have an idea myself, but i have already argued against it and 'won' in my head. momentum transfers are the silver bullet. everytime something impacts something else, the resultant velocity is distributed by the velocity and mass of the 'striker' minus the velocity and mass of the 'strikee'. the result(cause, actually) is that, everytime debris impacts the completely intact building, the completely intact(and coupled to the ground) part strikes back with an equal and opposite force. it is like hitting a pile of hammers with a hammer. the hammer bounces back........unless, there is an alternate energy source destroying the lower hammers ahead of the downward strike, thereby reducing the effective mass available for returning that force.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
However if you tried to get us to believe that the "squib" was the collapse, and since that squib is showing up below the debris, that therefore the collapse is faster than freefall at that point, most of us would say that's pretty ridiculous.


ahh. the bandwagon technique. 'most people would think this'. no. go read the poll results. most people here agree with the 'inside job'('mihop'(make it happen on purpose)) theory, and WAY most people agree with the or 'lihop' (let it happen on purpose) theory
anyway, that aside, if 'most of the people' REALLY believe that, then they are ALL WRONG.


Originally posted by LeftBehindThis is exactly what you guys are claiming is happening in this vid.

www.plaguepuppy.net...

However due to most of what is happening being obscured, you can post grainy gifs, and homemade charts and at least convince yourselves.


yes it's grainy. however, the TWO events which i am pointing out, and which happened 1/30th of a second apart, definitely have enough resolution for a positive identification. the images are from a broadcast quality camera, and what i have circled and pointed out may be grainy, but it is not faked, not a digital or analog anomoly, and clear enough to be measured. i could take it a step further, and use the 22 inch span of the window slots(IIRC) to actually measure the velocity and acceleration of the debris and the dust explosion(with the frame rate being the 'fudge' factor), but it is NOT NECESSARY. the RELATIVE duration of the events is the only thing needed.


Originally posted by LeftBehindAm I claiming I know exactly what is happening in that video. No, I have a reasonably good idea, though.

And my scenario seems more likely to me than someone sneaking into the towers and planting explosives on every perimeter column on every floor.

But, that's just me.



that is nice for you, but the OBSERVABLE phenomena is still best explained by explosives.
i welcome an alternate, and VALID interpretation(yes, i'm the judge of what's 'valid' to me, it is called critical thinking). this imaginary alternate explanation, would still not be a 'debunking', but rather an alternate possibility.

so far, there has been no alternate possibilty presented by the official story camp.

[edit on 10-8-2006 by billybob]



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Holy crap..... I think I have an approach that will be less brain-intensive so that we migh get ourselves on the same page, here.

Let's look at this from a different perspective.

What goes into arming a building for demolition?

Well.... first off.... there are days of prepwork where concrete is stripped from around steel supports, and then those steel supports are cut with cutting torches to ensure the steel 'pops off' at a certain angle.

Also, the explosive charges used in demolition are small - their area of effect deliberately kept very small to keep from sending debris out like high-velocity grenades.

You have to go through this process to really destroy steel - which was one of the primary weight-bearing materials in the entire structure. You can place three tons of TNT in that building you might cause a colapse - but you'd me more likely to strip the place of concrete for several floors and blow out the glass - and scare the living hell out of people below.

The biggest threats to steel are impact and prolongued heat exposure.

So..... we have to hide this massive project for days prior to the event. .... Not likely - ever or at all.

Then we've got your nice 'freefall' deal to play with.... there are several forces at work, here, one is gravity, one is natrual air resistance, and another is a pressure zone that develops behind the falling structure, which, in this unique case, would likely serve to increase the rate of acceleration.

You're also watching the wrong part of the tower - as if the top floor colapsed and then the preceeding floors followed. The top of the building stays mostly in-tact, above the impact zone, until it hits the initial resistance with the lowest floor of that piece, crumbling both floors, and continuing downward. The process continues with two essential colapses that works in a 'catapulting' reaction. It also generates some of those spectacular plumes of dust and debris that become ejected from the tower as it colapses. You're talking several thousand cubic meters of air being forced out of four or five thousand square feet of area that shrinks as the compression ratio increases....... that's a lot of force.

Common sense? Did you ever play around with tinker toys, legos, fireworks..... STUFF when you were a kid? That's all basic and intuitive physics derived from childhood play and observation. .... or at least for me.... am I alone, here?



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   
bump.

important thread. i was just observing this same phenomena of freefalling debris on the outside of the building being passed by expulsions from within on a different video.
i'll see if i can make another illustrative pic. sometime this week, hopefully.

i miss WCIP! (hell, i even miss howard, my arch-nemesis, LOL!)



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i miss WCIP! (hell, i even miss howard, my arch-nemesis, LOL!)


Bump as well. Will be nice to see the new photos. I too miss these folks. Don't forget Agent Smith also.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

What goes into arming a building for demolition?

Well.... first off.... there are days of prepwork where concrete is stripped from around steel supports, and then those steel supports are cut with cutting torches to ensure the steel 'pops off' at a certain angle.

Also, the explosive charges used in demolition are small - their area of effect deliberately kept very small to keep from sending debris out like high-velocity grenades.

You have to go through this process to really destroy steel - which was one of the primary weight-bearing materials in the entire structure. You can place three tons of TNT in that building you might cause a colapse - but you'd me more likely to strip the place of concrete for several floors and blow out the glass - and scare the living hell out of people below.


You may want to insert the "Thermate" argument here. I actually posted a calculation several months ago as to how much ThermITE it would take to cause the damage to the WTC. It was in the THOUSANDS of pounds. Yes THOUSANDS. So we get the therMATE argument that it is more powerful than therMITE. So...we know that that is a VERY difficult way to cut/burn somthing. You would have to build a harness for the thermate to burn in the direction you want it to. To cut the column at the necessary angles would be next to impossible. This is for EACH column...and not knowing EXACTLY where the planes are going to hit, you would have to plant a whole bunch!

We then get the "Jellied" Thermate...tops secret stuff that is military grade. You just lather it on... and VIOLA! Instant cutting charges! Again, same rules apply as to accessibility.

I'm sorry, I undestand that things CAN get snuck into a building..ie: the posibility of bombs at Oak City Murah Building. 1993 WTC Bombing...etc..But you would have to gain access to these columns..and these offices were occupied. You would have to take the walls down to apply the jelly thermate (or whatever you're using)

Even if we look at the posibility that there was a variety of explosives, the same reasonable questions should be asked. HOW??

Dont start with the strawman arguments about power downs and all that. We all know thats a pack of boloney.

Again, I work in a 1 million sq. foot building (yes I know its not NEAR the size of the towers)...Our security is a JOKE...but I tell you.. they know AND SO DO I ...as to what work is going on. Security cameras are not only into VCR's anymore. Our CCTV cameras go into the internet where they can be monitored. I can't be sure that this was available PRE 9-11 but after 1993, we can be confident that the security was top notch.

Thats my rant for now.



posted on May, 23 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
1993 WTC Bombing...etc..But you would have to gain access to these columns..and these offices were occupied. You would have to take the walls down to apply the jelly thermate (or whatever you're using)


Simple question. Where the mechanical floors occupied? I think by now you know what my theory is with the core columns and the mechanical floors. I actually don't know the answer and am really asking you.

[edit on 5/23/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 5/23/2007 by Griff]



posted on May, 24 2007 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by CameronFox
1993 WTC Bombing...etc..But you would have to gain access to these columns..and these offices were occupied. You would have to take the walls down to apply the jelly thermate (or whatever you're using)


Simple question. Where the mechanical floors occupied? I think by now you know what my theory is with the core columns and the mechanical floors. I actually don't know the answer and am really asking you.



Most mechanical floors require external vents or louvers for ventilation and heat rejection along most or all of their perimeter, precluding the use of glass windows. The resulting visible "dark bands" can disrupt the overall facade design especially if it is fully glass-clad. Different architectural styles approach this challenge in different ways.

In the Modern and International styles of the 1960s and 1970s where form follows function, the vents' presence is not seen as undesirable. Rather it emphasizes the functional layout of the building by dividing it neatly into equal blocks, mirroring the layout of the elevators and offices inside. This could be clearly seen on the World Trade Center twin towers and can be seen on the Sears Tower.

Conversely, designers of the recent postmodern-style skyscrapers strive to mask the vents and other mechanical elements in clever and ingenious ways. This is accomplished through such means as complex wall angles (Petronas Towers), intricate latticework cladding (Jin Mao Building), or non-glassed sections that appear to be ornamental (Taipei 101, roof of Jin Mao Building).



thanks for the bump of my memory. i've got a lot of 'real life' on my plate, right now, but i do want to do some measurements on some videos, and your reminder was good for reminding me.

and to cameron, do you know how to make a micro-processor, or would you say that that knowledge is beyond your ken?
if you DO know how, then, do you know what the difference in sound is between a purring honda engine from 1994, and one with a slight tick, and could you identify the problem from the sound?

they call it 'expert knowledge' for a reason. you or i not being able to design a new musical instrument that looks like a guitar, but sounds like a nine foot grand piano is not 'proof' that such an instrument is impossible to design and build.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i was just observing this same phenomena of freefalling debris on the outside of the building being passed by expulsions from within on a different video.
i'll see if i can make another illustrative pic. sometime this week, hopefully.



i guess that didn't happen.

crap.

sooooo busy. sorry, truth. i haven't retired, though. just on forced haitus.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


well, you'll be happy to know i not only found the video, but, someone else has put labels on it!
more DEFINITIVE PROOF that the demolition wave proceeded down the side of the building faster than gravity is pulling the freefalling debris.



[edit on 18-5-2009 by billybob]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
and, here's my original picture, uploaded to the ATS media portal, so you can see it without leaving this page.




posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
CameronFox states: "But you would have to gain access to these columns..and these offices were occupied. You would have to take the walls down to apply the jelly thermate (or whatever you're using)"

Superleadoverdrive counters: The following are additional Port Authority of New York & New Jersey World Trade Center property assessment Freedom of Information (FOI) records from the December 2000 Merritt & Harris Inc. report entitled "Due Diligence Physical Condition Survey World Trade Center", which contained recommendations for immediate major renovations throughout the World Trade Center complex during the year prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Previously released portions included those recommending immediate renovations upon major steel support columns located within the elevator shafts of WTC towers 1 and 2 just prior to September 11, 2001."
www.911blogger.com...

Since this thread has a lot of discussion about physics and acceleration etc., I have a physics question: How fast would a 4-ton steel outer wall unit from the Sky Lobby have to move (mph) to travel 600ft in 8 seconds? What sort of force can move the wall unit instantly out from the tower at very high speeds? Fire? Explosions? Collapsing/colliding structure?
www.csi911.info...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join