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.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
...as opposed to swallowing whole whatever new crap Alex Jones or ST911 are spewing out.
Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Another mind numbing debate where some common sense should end it.
The central core should not have collapsed period and even if there was failure it would have not fallen as far down as it did. There even could have been a tilting of the core at some point but we never got that.
Collapsing floors would mean the outer structure may fail in places but that could cause a crumpling eg. like in a pop can.
Regarding floors I still see no argument to explain why the two elevator or sky levels would not either stop or greatly slow the building collapse.
The conclusion watching the outcome is a form of demolition using the plane's impact as a diversion from the true method used to bring the building down.
Originally posted by Masisoar
Originally posted by denythestatusquo
The central core should not have collapsed period and even if there was failure it would have not fallen as far down as it did. There even could have been a tilting of the core at some point but we never got that.
Collapsing floors would mean the outer structure may fail in places but that could cause a crumpling eg. like in a pop can.
Regarding floors I still see no argument to explain why the two elevator or sky levels would not either stop or greatly slow the building collapse.
LOL This is about World Trade Center 7 but you have a point. There is a debacle in how/why the inner cores of both buildings seemed to of gave out simultaneously with the rest of the building at collapse initation.
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by LeftBehind
...as opposed to swallowing whole whatever new crap Alex Jones or ST911 are spewing out.
See this my friend is where you make yourself look stupid.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Since the whole WTC 7 "squibs" seems to have originated with Jones, it was easy to come to the conclusion about swallowing nonsense whole, as both of you seem to believe in these imaginary "squibs".
Thanks for proving my point.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
That was in response to the picture of "squibs" at WTC 7. I'll say it again, they are not squibs. Look at the originals.
Since the whole WTC 7 "squibs" seems to have originated with Jones, it was easy to come to the conclusion about swallowing nonsense whole, as both of you seem to believe in these imaginary "squibs".
Originally posted by ANOK
But anyway 'squibs', yeah what originals? Show us the originals or shut up!
Originally posted by Masisoar
Reformed Argument
WTC 7 "squib" video
In this video, an observation can be made, that on the front-face of this building, you can see, as it collapses, a string of windows breaking up the building, on what appears to be on eitherside of the kink. As the building falls, you notice the broken windows become somwhat obscured by what appears to be explusions from the windows.
With this + the corner explusions.. what caused the expulsions?
[edit on 11/23/2006 by Masisoar]
Originally posted by LeftBehind
Well since some of you would rather buy whatever they sell on prisonplanet than do your own research.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Another staffer at Studyof got around to calculating the velocity before I did, but here it is nonetheless:
www.studyof911.com...
101 Barclay was used as a reference point from a CBS video.
Originally posted by Masisoar
Jedi_Master, no.
[edit on 11/23/2006 by Masisoar]
Originally posted by bsbray11
Another staffer at Studyof got around to calculating the velocity before I did, but here it is nonetheless:
www.studyof911.com...
101 Barclay was used as a reference point from a CBS video.
Based on the height of the building given by NIST, as shown in that article, the acceleration from what's visible in the CBS video was around 9.77 m/s^2, whereas free-fall is 9.8m/s^2.
So the building was pretty much falling at free-fall speed in a vacuum. Looking forward to explanations of this.
The final figure for theoretical collapse acceleration rate of WTC7 in complete free fall in atmosphere and at sea level is 8.94m/s2, which is only a little above the actual observed 8.71m/s2 acceleration rate arrived at from analysis of the CBS footage and using the Emporis height measurement. From this we can imply that the structure provided a negative acceleratiion, i.e resistive force of approximately 0.23m/s2 to the gravitational collapse.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm fully expecting an equally irrelevant post in response from you, so try to understand that the rough estimate was to consider something other than the distance it covered per time as it fell.