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.

 

Explosives and Demolition Industry Explains CD Theory

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
the building was more in compression, than tension, from it's own weight. the only tension would be on the opposite side, once it starts to lean.




posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Edit: Or as BS has done...


You must confuse me with everybody, HowardRoark. Do I haunt you in your dreams, too?


I posted a somewhat detailed response as another thread, if that suits you any better.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
In thinking about the amount of pressure developed as the protec paper stated and the bldging having a core shaft and elevators and stairwells to the lobby. When the bldging started to fall should there not have been great gusts of air and dust coming out of the exits of the bldgings and lobby and should not someone not have a picture of this or on film and with so many persons around the building should not someone seen and reported such events. The building was in free fall
and if the pancake effect was part of the cause then there should have been moments of stagnation in the fall. I believe it fell within a 10 to 11 second time period and there were not moments of hesatation as I could tell. Just what did happen at the bldgings, one bldging that fell ha people waving for help from the very hole the plane crashed into and yet how could they survive if there was a raging fire of 1100 degrees. No one and I repeat NO ONE is sure what caused the blding to fall not even the bldgings, since no one asked then!



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
How about the account from the people who actually survived the collapse?

A Port Authority captain yelled at Lim to get moving, but he said, “You go ahead,” and he, too, put an arm around Harris, helping to carry her to the fourth floor.
That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.
The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.

www.newyorkmetro.com...



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
the building was more in compression, than tension, from it's own weight. the only tension would be on the opposite side, once it starts to lean.


WTC 7?

No - The end facing the towers caves, causing a slight tilt - however, due to the structure of the building, the mass is kept from tipping away from the building (as would happen in a standard 'slab and column' structure), however, it is no longer supported from the bottom, and the force is distributed on the mesh section next to it - when it buckles, and cascades down the side of the building at an accelerated pace.

As for the towers themselves - what in the world is odd about their colapse? Their exterior construction would provide a nice 'tube' to guide the colapsing concrete and steel to the ground in a rather organized fashion. In a bit of irony - it doesn't take much force to keep something falling in a general area, but it takes a lot to keep it from falling.

As for the lack of 'stops' in the middle of the fall.... why would there be? Buildings are designed to take the stress of supporting a stationary floor above them, as well as everything that goes on that floor (plus a little more for safety reasons). I would guess the floor capable of withstanding a grand total of one thousand tons. More of a hypothetical example than anything else - but, now you have the floor above that weights Four Hundred tons - not including miscelaneous items, people, etc. It hits the ground at a modest 3 meters per second - a rather inhibited colapse. You now have 36,000 tons of force smashing down on the floor below it. Remember that the energy an object carries increases as a power of two relative to the change in speed.

Yay for physics. And man I'm tired... I've gotten into a bizzare sleep schedule where I'll stay up for about 36 hours and then sleep 12, then have a 'normal' day, then stay up 36 hours........ Bootcamp is going to be hell at this rate....



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
there is only heresay about the damaged side of tower seven.
the 'huge hole' has never been shown to the public in a photograph.

okay, there were three towers.
so, even if there is a huge hole on one side, and it causes tension on the other, that tension will release in a direction away from the hole. ie. when you bend a ruler, and it snaps, the pieces don't go down, but rather, out sideways.

what we see in the videos of tower seven's demise, is nothing like that. it falls more or less straight down, with no stutter, indicating it is meeting ZERO resistance from below, indicating 'below' is being cleared of debris before the descending mass can hit it.
you know, like a controlled demolition?

and, this thread addresses all three towers, not just seven.

your suggestion is that the towers were like springs that were stretched up, and that once released, snapped down to the ground due to this tension, allowing for the extremely quick collapses.
but, they were ALL in compression from their own weight, and were 'waiting' to spring UPWARDS to reach equilibrium.

IF tower seven had the visible side in tension, then it should have snapped along a horizontal plane along that side, and the top part should have tipped away from our viewpoint, towards the alleged hole, and the lower section should have kicked out and fallen towards our viewpoint.

you can actually hold a ruler to the edge of the tower 7 as it falls at the rate of freefall in a vacuum, almost, and there is NO buckling, NO tipping, and NO fracturing.

your explanation may 'look good on paper', but it is not supported by the actual video documentation of the event.

nobody has ever claimed that tower seven was ALSO a 'pancake' collapse, either. the official explanation of tower seven's demise is in fact, non-existant.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Oh my goodness. If you can't simulate physics within your own mind as simple as WTC 7's structure then you have no business even taking part in the debate.

GRAVITY PULLS THINGS DOWN.

I set your block of wood up on some chicken wire set just right to balance and support your weight. You can shift your weight a bit, even do some very light compressions to test the strength. I take out a chunk of one of the pieces of chicken wire. Your right foot begins to sink. Suddenly a threshhold is reached and the entire structure colapses.

Why - because the force was made to be distributed along horizontal support beams directly below one of the 'crossbeamed' sets of two floors. The shape and continuity of the structure was critical to its strength - just like chipping a hole in an egg shell will severely hamper its weight-bearing properties.

The support was removed from below - not above - which would create horizontal tension in the upper floors, compression in the floors below the 'fulcrum' and then tension in the direction of gravity - vertical.

Many stresses and temperatures at work on this building.

And one of the videos used to try and prove demolition by showing a tear in the upper part of the structure (collaborating with my hypothesis) is primarily one that I analyzed to develop this theory - since the motion is there.

And, no - it's not going to be visible for any more than maybe a full second before the colapse. The entire thing - physical reactions that I could take pages to explain and detail - all happen in a matter of a fraction of a second.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Oh my goodness. If you can't simulate physics within your own mind as simple as WTC 7's structure then you have no business even taking part in the debate.

GRAVITY PULLS THINGS DOWN.


you said that the buildings were in tension.
if the tensile strength of steel is the most important factor to consider, then you are suggesting the metal has been stretched beyond equilibrium. if the stretching is horizontal, than the release energy will also be horizontal.
you suggested that tensile strength pulled the tower down with great speed, and now you are attributing it to gravity.
it is either a gravity driven collapse, or a tensile 'pulled' down collapse. however, for tensile forces to 'pull' the building downwards, the tension must be in 180 degrees opposite the direction of gravity. this also suggests that there was some force at the top, pulling UP on the towers to stretch the steel opposite gravity.

there are some people over at physorg.com that would welcome debate on your 'pages' of explanations(i, being one of them). there is a thread there in the 'off topic' section, called, '911 events - new thread'. some of the the scholars for 911 truth hang out there once in a while, so it won't be over everyone's head.

please don't try and pull the, 'i'm smarter than you' crap, anymore, and we can talk. you are the one who claimed tension was responsible for the speedy descent. if you feel i am unworthy of debate, simply hit the ignore button, and you will never have to read any of my ponderings.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
How about the account from the people who actually survived the collapse?

A Port Authority captain yelled at Lim to get moving, but he said, “You go ahead,” and he, too, put an arm around Harris, helping to carry her to the fourth floor.
That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.
The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.

www.newyorkmetro.com...


what floor did the air start to hit this superman of steel and luck, Koromoroski landed three floors below and only buried to his knees yet everything in the building was buried by hundreds of feet of debris very strange indeed this man had such luck to live again and tell such a story. If the force of the wind is as strong as it should be then this man is either a liar or the luckyist person in the world at 911. How long does it take to go down a flight of stairs clear the building and escape harm what is the perimeter of harm and the safe zone.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
That is some piece of work.Thats it attack one of the HEROES again! Brilllliant!
Jeezis! What is going on here? This man was saving people! What will you ever accept as "truth"????? Lay off the "Matrix" and "V" for vindictive. Quit tearing down the great people that made it out alive. A little respect is all I ask!

[edit on 10-8-2006 by Duhh]



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duhh
That is some piece of work.Thats it attack one of the HEROES again! Brilllliant!
Jeezis! What is going on here? This man was saving people! What will you ever accept as "truth"????? Lay off the "Matrix" and "V" for vindictive. Quit tearing down the great people that made it out alive. A little respect is all I ask!

[edit on 10-8-2006 by Duhh]


Read the story yourself then, small quote about a wind that so called knocked him to his knees, I thought the heroes was the ones that died in 911. Your not debating
your attacking the messenger. In the news story there was much to be said about the truth being stated by who did what and what happened this caused the surviving fireman to break their brotherhood I did not do this, I am seeking the truth in the 911 fall of the building. Still no proof of a so called great wind that a pancake should have made. It seems that the wind was directed more towards the outside of the building much like explosions and yes the first surviver stated he heard explosions going off but I guess that had to be the wind going down stairwell B.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
there is only heresay about the damaged side of tower seven.
the 'huge hole' has never been shown to the public in a photograph.


Only hearsay?

What about the massive amount of smoke pouring out of the side of WTC 7? What about the numerous eye witness accounts that say WTC 7 was severely damaged?

What about this video?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Yes, we're going to totally dismiss this and look at it as irrelevant.

Right.

How do you think some feel when we approach you with Steven Jones, we're critical of things like this in the same way, don't throw rash comments HowardRoark.

I for one do not contend that this is irrelevant, but untrustworthy as it this company had contracts to work on the debris for 9/11.

ASSERTION 1

This only focuses on as if the buildings were to be brought down conventionally like a commercial controlled demolition. From the base up. But yet it talks about how creating a huge gravity load to bring down the building. Weakening core columns/beams with the weight of the upper floors, can cause a large enough force to bring down the rest of the building PROVIDED the lower supports were weakened significantly enough to allow them to be brought down by such a force.

ASSERTION 2

Assertion 2 talks about the path of least resistance but there was a lot of resistance? Lots of resistance? Resistance would show itself when you have a structural building, with floors filled with concrete and steel, and a sturdy steel core being brought down without resistance by an upper gravital powered mass.

All 70+ floors below each collapse zone seemed to of given out pretty fast, even with each floors being a majority of just empty space, with office equipment, but the equipment doesn't make itself to be a substantial mass factor. Even with floor on floors, you had the upper half of the building destroying itself as it came down while it was destroying lower floors. With upper floors being ripped apart and strewn on the streets, you don't have a faster pace of fall on the building. You meet resistance from the structural supports and the air (even with air resistance being minimal).

But to the side of that, of course they didn't fall straight in their footsteps, but that the footstep comment is made generally to point out how they didn't tip over or cause significant damage to a majority of a side of the towers. Debris can be expected. This is to pose as if it was a "PERFECT DEMOLITION" which is obviously was NOT.

ASSERTION 3

Get real, address all the squibs. It's pretty reasonable to anyone that understands air flow that the "squibs" RIGHT UNDER the collapse wave were from falling floors and air pressure being shot out.

Take a look at the ones a bit farther below that and address it.

K thx, Drive thru.

ASSERTION 4

Hmmm, witnesses heard explosions yet no explosives were found.

Can that be logic and be applied to.

Hmmm, witnesses saw a plane crash, yet no plane was found.

What did they hear? Sonic boom of air pressure out of the falling floors?


ASSERTION 5

The hot spots provided by the photos by NASA indicated VERY high temperature hot spots, which provides enough evidence of volumous amounts of molten material, that with what was found at the 9/11 site, seen coming out of the building and on the streets.

What else in the building do you have copious amounts of that can burn that hot (metals)?

They didn't even provide an explanation for what it could be, they said "based on testimonials from workers" (hmm testimonials from witnesses hearing explosions during collapse don't count though?), photographs.

Hmm what are the molten pools then? Someone anyone? And what caused the high temperatures.

Weak.

ASSERTION 7

They stay away from the WTC 7 issue, read the bottom paragraph. That's sort of funny


ASSERTION 8

Hah, yeah, fires made the WTC 7 fall from the bottom up. Right. Oh wait, might I add, simultaneous collapse, just like the WTC 1 and 2. But however my main focus on this is WTC 7's kink


-----------------------------------


HowardRoark, what do you have to say on the matters?



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Only hearsay?


Yes, hearsay.

A "Massive Crater" that somehow goes unphotographed for what... 7 hours?

"Raging infernos" that somehow break no windows and go unphotographed?

Google image search "inferno"... WTC 7 was no inferno and since it was a BLOCK from the twin towers, what FORCES were available to blow a "MAssive Crater" into the side of the building? Nothing could have been ejected horozontally that far via gravity alone so what did the supposed damage? The dust cloud?

Squibs on the upper floors just prior to the near perfect, exceedingly rapid collapse?

Show me the crater!!

Better yet... answer THIS THREAD:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Think they have something to hide?


[edit on 11-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
GRAVITY PULLS THINGS DOWN.


At a CONSTANT and PREDICTABLE rate of acceleration which WAS NOT observed on 9/11 unless you think the building was made of egg shells in a vacuum.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


A "Massive Crater" that somehow goes unphotographed for what... 7 hours?

"Raging infernos" that somehow break no windows and go unphotographed?



Did you not click on the link to the video I just posted?



www.youtube.com...

Here's a pic in case you can't be bothered to watch the video.






Squibs on the upper floors just prior to the near perfect, exceedingly rapid collapse?


Actually the "squibs" at WTC 7 only appear when you zoom in and compress the image. When you look at the source images there are no squibs.

www.911myths.com...

Looks like broken windows to me.

www.911myths.com...





[edit on 11-8-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
[edit on 11-8-2006 by blatantblue]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind


Very misleading photograph. There were major fires (that you could actually see and were photographed) going on right behind Building 7, in buildings 5 and 6.



All that smoke rose right into the sky and up behind Building 7, making it look like all of that smoke was pouring out of WTC7.


Again, show us THE FIRES in WTC7. It was photographed plenty before its collapse, including the collapse itself. SHOW US THE RAGING FIRES.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Look man, I know you want to keep ignoring these pics, but look at the video.

Here is a pic where I added in the relative positions of the buildings you claim to be causing the smoke .



So the smoke is flowing out of WTC 7, towards the buildings you claim produced the smoke.

The idea is ludicrous. The smoke is obviously flowing out of WTC 7, no matter how much you wish to spin it.

www.youtube.com...

Lemme guess, the video clearly showing smoke pouring out of WTC 7 are misleading? Or are your unfounded claims that the smoke is coming from buildings to the south, flowing northward up the side of 7, and then flowing south somehow, misleading?

Misleading is trying to tell us that a ten story building on fire across the street and to the south, is causing smoke to come out of the top stories of a fifty story building and then head south.



Again, show us THE FIRES in WTC7. It was photographed plenty before its collapse, including the collapse itself. SHOW US THE RAGING FIRES.


What do you think is causing smoke to pour from inside of 7? Smoke bombs?!


[edit on 11-8-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Here is a pic where I added in the relative positions of the buildings you claim to be causing the smoke .



Look:



Do I even have to explain why your image is wrong?

Some smoke coming from WTC7, yes, as there was some fire. The raging infernos we're told about, not so much. There are plenty of images -- of the fires -- that speak for themselves.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join