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.

 

How long did it took for the WTC 7 to collapse?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
More insults huh ( when are you going to grow out of those )?

So why don't you try to explain it ( if you can )...




posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
If you can't understand that, man, then there really is nothing I can say to you that you couldn't consider an insult, and I'm not going to break it down into baby steps because it's already straightforward as hell.

The mass of WTC7 has nothing to do with how fast it fell.

The mass was ONLY CONSIDERED for ANOTHER CALCULATION, as in SOMETHING BESIDES HOW FAST IT FELL. Look at the damned page yourself.


If you still can't understand it, then just stop posting. That's about all I can help you with.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   
I'm not going to submit to your version of how the window issues weren't "Squibs".

But what I find more compelling, in fact, is the rate at which is fell. IT HONESTLY experienced little to no resistance and it doesn't take mathmatical equations to determine that. The video I posted previously is enough.

It's a very important part because how could the fires trigger such simultaneous destruction of the supports.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
I'm not going to submit to your version of how the window issues weren't "Squibs".



My version?


Heck it's your link you posted...

Are you afraid to look at it frame by frame, and see that there are no expulsions from the windows ( hence no "squibs" )?



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. (period)

There are expulsions from the windows.

See what I don't understand is why those windows broke. Not hinting to a "Lawl-conspiracy" but I mean, I'll admit, my knowledge of demolition is limited (lawl-yeah). But seriously, and yeah I mean seriously, if the building seemed to of received so many structural failures, I don't understand why those certain windows failed.

How much stretch room did the windows have within their frames?

And you can call me dodging the subject, but I'd still like to focus on its fall time.

But I'd also like to get to the bottom of the squib issue with WTC 7, its still interesting to note the expulsions from the SW corner of the building.






(Open minded - yes)



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Well at least you don't give insults...

My friend, there are no expulsions, watch it frame by frame and you will see...

What you are calling expulsions are simply windows breaking and the building possibly breaking up...

Remember there was already damage to that corner of the building before collapse...





As to what caused the windows to break...

Tourque of the building?



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:16 AM
link   
What I'll agree with, is tha the window expulsion argument, in its most honest reality is in context of "being weak" for the debate on whether World Trade Center 7 is a controlled demolition or not.

I mean sure, getting to the bottom of it is helpful but not truely defining of whether "LOL DEMOLITION".

What I like to pursue at heart, shared by BSBray11, and others.. is the "free-fall" velocity of World Trade Center 7 as it fell and how, even the video seems to reveal a "demolition look-a-like" from in which how it fell, experiencing, what appears to be, minimal to little resistance. This is the key factor in this, and how the vertical supports in WTC 7 all seemed to of been equally compromised (well.. relatively speaking) at the same time to allow for it fall in its foot-steps.

No leaning tower of Piza style here, or anything irregular, but the fact that it resembles a demolition so well does not help its case AT ALL.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar

What I like to pursue at heart, shared by BSBray11, and others.. is the "free-fall" velocity of World Trade Center 7 as it fell and how, even the video seems to reveal a "demolition look-a-like" from in which how it fell, experiencing, what appears to be, minimal to little resistance. This is the key factor in this, and how the vertical supports in WTC 7 all seemed to of been equally compromised (well.. relatively speaking) at the same time to allow for it fall in its foot-steps.


Well...

to put it simple...

Velocity=distance/time



So to plug in the numbers in the link that bs provided...

110.534/4.7572=23.236073155350010510826150935464/ms

Calculate it for your self...

www.1728.com...

Don't know why they are wanting to put the building in a vacuum, if it fell in a vacuum then the figure 9.77 m/s2 would probably be valid...



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   
^Only problem is that calculator does not include resistance.

Put resistance of the undamaged floors, columns, fasteners etc.. into the the mix and you have a totally different result, no?

But how do you measure that resistance? So I say again for the millionth time, there was no discernable resistance from undamaged floors, how do you account for that?

That's where the argument falls flat imo, no resistance means there must have been another energy acting to remove the resistance of undamaged floors. What was it?

The only logical conclusion is some kind of explosives or cutting agent, unless Larry went around cutting welds and loosening nuts and bolts. Or physics took a day off...



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Yes, ANOK, that's what I feel to be the true smoking gun of the World Trade Center 7 debate.

Resistence.

On any other normal day, it just wouldn't turn out that way. I think I saw in the bible, there was a passage that said:

"There shalt be a day, when TWO towers of the same nature, will have their inner core and exterior columns seemingly buckle in a relatively simultaneous manner. Later that day, a nearby brother tower shall experience the same simultaneous compromise of structural components allowing for a virtually vertical collapse.

Then will be the coming of the Masisoar, and his infinite knowledge".


Was something like that.


[edit on 11/24/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Ahhh...me...

That figure is with resistance, remember it was taken from the video, so whatever the time and distance the buildings fell at was in the figures, so you don't need to re-factor it in...

If you want what it should have fallen at it is 46.6186/ms (9.8*4.757 given the figures from the link), which is much faster than 23.236073155350010510826150935464/ms...



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
^OK so how was it in the figures? Pls point this out. How was the resistance measured?

I'm guessing you realy don't know, prove me wrong.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Well...

Let me see if I can explain it to you...

In the video according to the link, the building collapsed 110.534 meters in 4.757 seconds ( this I won't argue it is close to what I got at the point they measured, I got approx .1 second faster ), that's total collapse so far at that distance and time, building resistance included. There's no need to re-factor it in...

So given two knowns you can figure the unknown by v=d/t which = 23.236073155350010510826150935464/ms

In other words, what ever resistance the building offered is viewed in the video...



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Yes you do have to factor in resistance, thats the crutch of the argument.

If I understand you right then that measurement from the vid is just assuming there was resistance, no? There was no noticeable resistance seen in the video.

I'm saying there was no resistance due to the quick fall time. So if I'm right your calculation is not valid, unless you can calculate how much resistance the undamaged floors and columns should have caused.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I don't get why you need to factor in resistance...

All the evidence is there in the vid, the building collapsed a certian distance at a certian time, resistance included. Right there captured for all the world to see...

If you figure free fall velocity for the time it fell at that distance you get 46.6186/ms ( 9.8*4.757 )...



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
That figure is with resistance, remember it was taken from the video, so whatever the time and distance the buildings fell at was in the figures, so you don't need to re-factor it in...


The problem is you're going about this ass-backwards.

You're saying, it wasn't a demolition, therefore all of the resistance in the video is all of the resistance the building should have provided against it falling onto itself.


If it was a demolition (even though, oh we know it couldn't have been, Jedi Master!), then the way you're going about this would neither show or disprove this, because, again, you're going about it ass-backwards.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
That figure is with resistance, remember it was taken from the video, so whatever the time and distance the buildings fell at was in the figures, so you don't need to re-factor it in...


You're saying, it wasn't a demolition, therefore all of the resistance in the video is all of the resistance the building should have provided against it falling onto itself.




That's right...

That's exactally what I'm saying...



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Maybe no one ever explained this to you, but when demolition charges go off, and slice through columns, they typically do it in such a way as to cause the building to fall straight down with no "resistance": that is elements of the building falling onto, transferring momentum through, and being greatly slowed down by other elements of the same building.




The building above falls straight down, accelerating near free-fall, because everything that would prevent this has been destroyed.


If it had not been, then the building would not fall in such a manner!


With WTC7, there was resistance similar to the building above. It just fell straight down as if all its columns had been destroyed simultaneously, even more symmetrically than the above building (which is undoubtedly a controlled demolition).

What you're saying is true: all the resistance shown in a video of WTC7 collapsing, is all the resistance it encountered. How this translates to WTC7 not being a demolition to you, I can't understand, because the resistance was next to nothing, or less. I'm not trying to offend you, Jedi Master, but the way you try to reason shows how little you're actually thinking about what you're saying. Totally ass-backwards, by no means conclusive of anything, and shouldn't have come up in the first place. Watching a building fall does not equate to it NOT being a demolition on any planet I'm familiar with.

[edit on 24-11-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11




The building above falls straight down, accelerating near free-fall, because everything that would prevent this has been destroyed.




I guess that tells me your powers of observation...

The building you are showing doesn't fall straight down, it looks like it is tilting as it is falling...

As far as CD's go I don't need you to tell me or anyone to explain...

The vid of WTC 7 has all the evidence you need, it did offer resistance to gravity...



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
I guess that tells me your powers of observation...

The building you are showing doesn't fall straight down, it looks like it is tilting as it is falling...


Tilting as it is falling in what direction?


But I have to admit, WTC7 was a lot better of a job than the above. It didn't lean nearly as much, despite being almost 20 floors taller.


The vid of WTC 7 has all the evidence you need, it did offer resistance to gravity...


Which is why it slowed down as it fell, right?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join