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.

 

Video showing calculations behind throwing 4 ton beams 600ft

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I just came across this video which I thought was rather interesting. I dont know how to verify the calculations done, but they seem legitimate?

www.youtube.com...


So what could make 4 ton beams leave the structure at 40-50 mph? Is it possible the beams fond were shot out from the impact of the planes?


[edit to test embed code]

[edit on 2-10-2006 by ADVISOR]




posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   
So nobody watched this or has any comments on it?



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
Is it possible the beams fond were shot out from the impact of the planes?


I don't think so, at least not nearly that far, but there were aluminum coverings that were knocked out.


I've heard people try to explain those ejections with torsion forces, but this would imply the steel being squeezed intensely between two solid bodies, whereas the collapsing bodies were actually being quickly ripped and dissociated into the very same small sections that were ejected so violently. The falling "caps" of the buildings did not last long at all.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Don't forget that the steel was ejected out in STRAIGHT lengths. There is no way torsion could have done this. Torsion....by definition is a bending force or a moment force. Either way...they wouldn't have fallen in straight little pieces. Bending...hmmm....straight pieces jettisoned out in that manner? No way. Not with just gravity it wasn't.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Just watched the clip. I observed that they didn't take into acount that a plane traveling at 500 + mph hit the towers? Am i seeing this right. When they go up and down...they don't account for the trajectory of the plane? If this is so, I would have to say...watch out for this video. I'll watch it again and see if they account for this.

Edit: saw it again and they specifically say that it would have been close to 50 MPH at the impact site. I really see no problem with this when the plane was crashing at 500+ MPH. Maybe I'm seeing something different but I'd take caution to this video because I feel it is misleading.

[edit on 9/29/2006 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Doesn't seem to me that 4 tons is really all that much. Heavy cars can get tossed around in a hurricane. The collapsing tower ejecting a piece of steel at 50 or 60 miles an hour doesn't strike me as out of the question. Especially since that's what happened.



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Just watched the clip. I observed that they didn't take into acount that a plane traveling at 500 + mph hit the towers?


I think this is in reference to the collapses, not the impacts.


Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Doesn't seem to me that 4 tons is really all that much.


And I'm not sure 4 tons is an accurate figure on some of these sections of steel.





There's the large section launched about 600 feet onto the Winter Garden (brownish section of columns), which you can't even see in the above image because it's literally buried in crap.





And there's a similar section, with clean-up equipment nearby for comparison.


This is what was ejected during collapse, not just 4-ton materials.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 12:01 AM
link   
If the impact of the plane is what threw the beams, we would see thirty to fifty-foot lengths of steel ejecting from the towers during impact, which we do not see. Watch any of the videos and look for this, it's not in there.

I don't know enough about the specific calculations to make an engineer's informed conclusion, but I think by now it's pretty obvious that aircraft alone didn't bring down the towers. It's just so obvious it's hard to see.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Color me confused… but now parts of the buildings fell too far away? I thought before they fell too neatly… I believe falling in its own footprint was the buzz phrase?

“but I think by now it's pretty obvious that aircraft alone didn't bring down the towers”

Obvious to who? The only thing that is obvious is that the CTers are grasping at straws.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
Color me confused… but now parts of the buildings fell too far away? I thought before they fell too neatly… I believe falling in its own footprint was the buzz phrase?


It's not our fault if you don't understand this stuff.


Center of gravity: in the footprints. That is to say, material ejected pretty evenly, primarily in four directions.

Actual mass: by and large ejected out of the footprint, very far in some cases. Kind of hard to "pancake" in a situation like this, but then again, not even NIST is backing the pancake theory anymore, lol.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Another nail in the coffin of the original theory. Nice video, thanks for the link.


Originally posted by bsbray11
...but then again, not even NIST is backing the pancake theory anymore, lol.


Really? Any more details on this? And is this before or after Bush blurted out about explosives in the towers?



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
More calculations/theory/data about what is the only thing that can cause the seen effects:
911 WTC - Evidence of an Nuclear explosion?, Your advice & Input Required
forum.physorg.com...



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   
The picture that seems to me to be emerging is that:



  1. the planes hit the buildings
  2. there are isolated explosions between first impact and collapse of each building
  3. immediately prior to final collapse, there is a powerful explosion in each basement
  4. charges placed throughout the building trigger final collapse, with
  5. thermite/thermate charges around the core to slice it into sections in an exothermic reaction.


I don't think that a small nuclear device would be necessary given all the above. JMO.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
To me the picture that is coming:

+No plane on every location.
+Fusion devices and lots of explosives.

Dr. Reynolds exposes 9/11 TV fakery on FoxNews
www.youtube.com...

US Govt Use Of Nukes At The WTC
www.thepriceofliberty.org...

911 Debris Dust Was Toxic and Nuclear!
/zzh7j

Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the
World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the
WTC 11 September 2001
www.ehponline.org...

Trailer for "WMD at the WTC" Be in DC Sept 11, 2006 for the premiere
video.google.com...


[edit on 30-9-2006 by brainsucker]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by bsbray11
...but then again, not even NIST is backing the pancake theory anymore, lol.

Really? Any more details on this? And is this before or after Bush blurted out about explosives in the towers?


Not sure, but the more "initiated" of us "truthers" had realized that NIST never outlined a global collapse mechanism to begin with, so all the pancake-theorists were basing their opinions upon absolutely nothing but vague conjecture from a few independent papers and FEMA.


NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.


wtc.nist.gov...

Notice how they assert that they have proven something "conclusively" that they haven't even fully explained.

Is anyone here familiar with this other idea that NIST is referencing, even so long after its report was released? Because I haven't heard it. Only pancake theory stuff. So what exactly are they trying to say? And how in the HELL have they shown it "conclusively" when no one is even sure wtf they're trying to say to begin with? They theorized INITIATION mechanisms, and nothing beyond that! Virtually only one or two floors per building! Nothing in terms of the global collapses, at all.

But yeah, they've definitely and officially moved away from "pancake" or "progressive collapse" theories.

[edit on 30-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Well, the pieces of the tower's skin, in the photos above, look like they'd weight more than 4 tons each. But, then again, they were part of the outer skin and may be just aluminum and glass.

Even so, pieces like that would be pushed out by air and debris in spite of the window holes, not to mention the actual impact of falling steel on steel. Falling due to gravity alone is an acceleration of nearly 10 meters per second squared. It'd only take about three seconds for the huge mass of the collapsing upper floors to hammer the floors beneath them with enough velocity and force to toss off a mere few tons of steel at 25 m/s at about the 70th floor -- plenty of force to send those sections 600 feet, imo.

The collapsing tower was about half a million tons in 500 million cubic feet of space reduced to a pile of rubble in 15 seconds. That's a lot of force, both downward and outward. From the video:


What could possibly provide the horizontal push needed to throw 4-ton girders the distance of two football fields? Air squeezed from between the collapsing floors might puff out dust, but surely not huge steel girders.


Air is a lot thicker and heavier than we usually imagine. At 15 ibs of pressure per square inch, when we talk about fast moving air we're talking about fluid dynamics. Slow moving water can wash away houses. Just a few cubic centimeters of fast moving, compressed air can shoot a BB across a small firing range. Rip a hole in a pressurized airliner 40,000 feet and the escaping/bursting air will take nearly everything with it. Collapse a giant tower with that much open space in it and you'll get a rush of air so powerful it'd blow sections of the facade out at 25 m/s easily.










[edit on 30-9-2006 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Well, the pieces of the tower's skin, in the photos above, look like they'd weight more than 4 tons each. But, then again, they were part of the outer skin and may be just aluminum and glass.


What? "Outer skin"?

The windows and aluminum panels were connected onto those things, but they didn't make up those things. The aluminum panels were thin and silvery. I shouldn't have to tell you that you're not looking at glass.




Those columns there are perimeter columns.




Made of steel.



It'd only take about three seconds for the huge mass of the collapsing upper floors to hammer the floors beneath them with enough velocity and force to toss off a mere few tons of steel at 25 m/s at about the 70th floor -- plenty of force to send those sections 600 feet, imo.


Maybe if there wasn't hundreds of tons of concrete and steel in the way. The building that was "falling" (bad way to think of it, as columns would have bent and yielded, not just started falling straight down unless they were cut) was "falling" into more of the same, except still intact and providing massive resistance. For WTC1, about 13 floors falling straight through 97 more, becoming thicker and thicker on the way down, spewing more and more mass outwards, without even slowing down. That just cannot happen, physically, possibly, anything, outside of demolitions.


Slow moving water can wash away houses.


Houses constructed of what? Plywood?


Just a few cubic centimeters of fast moving, compressed air can shoot a BB across a small firing range.


Because the BB is small and the chamber is airtight. What would happen if the chamber wasn't airtight? Nothing, or maybe move the BB a couple inches.

The collapsing Towers were far from airtight. Air would have went up and out of the collapsing floors, or out of windows (which would've shattered at a low PSI anyway, man, and would've relieved a lot of any pressure), before launching a huge chunk of steel 600 feet. Your last example is similarly irrelevant, and I think your conclusions are unfounded.

[edit on 30-9-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
Color me confused… but now parts of the buildings fell too far away? I thought before they fell too neatly… I believe falling in its own footprint was the buzz phrase?

“but I think by now it's pretty obvious that aircraft alone didn't bring down the towers”

Obvious to who? The only thing that is obvious is that the CTers are grasping at straws.




First, I'm not grasping at straws, that's actually funny. Ask bsbray or Griff how long it's taken me to comprehend what I now recognize as evidence of explosives in the WTC. I think what you need to really do is sit down and look at everything, which will take a lot of time to do because there's just so much information out there, but it's really worth it for your sake. Even if you don't end up seeing things in a different light, you'll still have learned something.

As to "parts falling too far away", we're not talking about parts "falling"; we're talking about specific, extremely heavy pieces blown an abnormal distance away from the collapse field when they otherwise should have just fallen.

Let's not just post "CTers grasping at straws". I've used that line myself a few times and it's pretty annoying to hear at this point. Again, I highly suggest that you take an hour a day or more from whatever you usually do to waste time and watch some documentaries, it's worth it.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Don’t take this the wrong way, but please get down off your self righteous pedestal. I have spent slightly more time then a few hours reading & watching any info I can find, though I obviously don’t have as much time as some of you. The fact that you have read & believed what you have read is no more valid then me not believing.

I can’t explain everything. I actually do believe that some things have been covered up. I see no valid questions that would lead me to a controlled demolition or any PRE 9-11/Government Involvement.

Even you must admit that you seem to be more willing to believe the unproven outlandish then unproven mundane. I just require really good evidence & proof before making such leaps.

The term Witch Hunt comes to mind far too much with the boards. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it evil.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Testing...



[edit on 2006/10/1 by Hellmutt]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join