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.

 

Visible explosives 7 wtc

page: 10
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
The problem with GwionX is that he believes the official story because he is afraid not to. He also believes somehow a few random Arabs could pull this off, and not an unlimited resource government with full control of everything.

Someday, he will stop being a scared little person, and he will finally wake up to the apposing facts, instead of hanging on the very very very very few supporting facts to his and the controlled medias, and the governments horrible lie of an explanation.




posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
For the people that say there is no evidence of CD in WTC 7 is wrong.

killtown.911review.org...

That is all the evidence one should need. Hidden in plain sight.

The side of the building shown on the camera has no fires, no structural damage, yes the entire wall fell straight down, and had zero resistance on the rest of the building.

Oh yeah, and a picture of these CUT BEAMS.

::attention::
this picture was taken before the cleanup.
::attention::

www.mediumrecords.com...

[edit on 7-3-2007 by Connected]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
Oh yeah, and a picture of these CUT BEAMS.

::attention::
this picture was taken before the cleanup.
::attention::

www.mediumrecords.com...

[edit on 7-3-2007 by Connected]


Look at the bracing of those columns. Fire and damage brought them down my arse.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
www.mediumrecords.com...

Look at the bracing of those columns. Fire and damage brought them down my arse.


My thoughts exactly... these buildings were so solid it makes me cry when I actually see people support the "fire and damage" theory.

IMO, no falling debris could damage that massive steel structure, nor fire.

Come to think of it, if you look at the picture, that entire wall is pretty much still intact, how come it didn't give any resistance to the rest of the building as it fell? Ohhhh, I know why, it was a CD.

[edit on 7-3-2007 by Connected]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
IMO, no falling debris could damage that massive steel structure, nor fire.


It would be nice if someone would calculate the required work to sever one of those columns and see if WTC 1 falling on them could do it. Anyone? Not to mention severing the cross bracing also. If I can find time, I might try.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
The problem with GwionX is that he believes the official story because he is afraid not to.


This seems to be the prevailing attitude amongst people who still believe that thier is actually a two party political system in America.

Democracy is attempting to save itself. Shhh, don't tell anyone.


[edit on 7-3-2007 by In nothing we trust]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
It would be nice if someone would calculate the required work to sever one of those columns and see if WTC 1 falling on them could do it. Anyone? Not to mention severing the cross bracing also. If I can find time, I might try.



Those kind of figures would probably be near incalculable.


Put it this way, if that entire wall shown in the picture could survive the actual collapse of WTC 7, then I very well doubt any falling debris from WTC 1 and 2 could damage it.

[edit on 7-3-2007 by Connected]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Not so sure. They'd have to know what type of explosive to use (the work needed) to sever steel to do a regular CD. I bet there is a table somewhere that has the values needed to sever steel by work (force). I could be wrong though.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Not so sure. They'd have to know what type of explosive to use (the work needed) to sever steel to do a regular CD. I bet there is a table somewhere that has the values needed to sever steel by work (force). I could be wrong though.


Well no, you are right there might be a table for directed force on a single beam, but what about indirect brute forces on several beams and cross braces acting together to form an over all structural integrity?

You have a single beam with one force rating, but how much does that force rating change when there is another cross brace or beam giving it extra support?




[edit on 7-3-2007 by Connected]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Believe what you see, not what you are told to see.

9/11 has been completely covered up from beginning to end, mmmmm....a bit like Princes Diana........mmmmm.......a bit like weapons of mass destruction that have never been found...mmmmm a bit like life as we know it....................



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
......the truth....as in the biger picture is very very frightening. It is much easier to pretend the truth is not there and it is not happening and just go along with what is being fed to the nation.

Some people cannot deal or cope with the truth...so they allow the brain washing and letting others make their decisions for them.... you cannot blame them.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Connected
Well no, you are right there might be a table for directed force on a single beam, but what about indirect brute forces on several beams and cross braces acting together to form an over all structural integrity?


Good point.


You have a single beam with one force rating, but how much does that force rating change when there is another cross brace or beam giving it extra support?


I guess it was just a pipe dream. It still might give an idea.

Or you might be able to analys the facade as a composite deck. Just turn it on it's side and rearrange the forces involved. I have no idea if this would work though. I haven't gotten to the composite decking section of my studies yet.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Not so sure. They'd have to know what type of explosive to use (the work needed) to sever steel to do a regular CD. I bet there is a table somewhere that has the values needed to sever steel by work (force). I could be wrong though.



Ah! I was just about to say, I know someone who has such a table, he just told me so last night. So if I can get the amount of, say, C4 that it would take to cut that column, could you convert that (with what's known of C4) to Joules or something along those lines?

Give me a column size and I'll see what I can do.


On top of that, we can figure how much mass would have to "fall" from the floor the debris came from to perform that work, given that acceleration was due to gravity alone (which is obviously incorrect if the beam traveled laterally).



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Ah! I was just about to say, I know someone who has such a table, he just told me so last night. So if I can get the amount of, say, C4 that it would take to cut that column, could you convert that (with what's known of C4) to Joules or something along those lines?


I think the same person just U2U'd me.


Give me a column size and I'll see what I can do.


You probably know more than me at this point. Think we could figure it out by the video?



On top of that, we can figure how much mass would have to "fall" from the floor the debris came from to perform that work, given that acceleration was due to gravity alone (which is obviously incorrect if the beam traveled laterally).


We might be able to calculate the velocity and everything from the trajectory. It might be a start.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2stuush
......the truth....as in the biger picture is very very frightening. It is much easier to pretend the truth is not there and it is not happening and just go along with what is being fed to the nation.

... you cannot blame them.


No you can not blame them.

The safe thing to do is to do nothing and pretend nothing is wrong.

Action will only be taken by the few.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Nevermind. I can get the instantaneous net force acting on a mass the instant in touches WTC7 but I just posted a bunch of other calculations that we can't even use, and then had to go back and take them out lol.


Let's say the mass that struck WTC7, for the sake of argument, was 36,000 kg (~40 tons). I've seen the debris that streamed WTC7's way in videos and it probably wasn't half that (the big section that hit Winter Garden was supposed to be 22 tons, for comparison).

Let's also say that this debris fell from the 80th floor of WTC1 (80 x 12.5 ft. per floor = 1000 ft. up), consisted of a single section of perimeter columns, and first contacted WTC7's South face 100 ft. off the ground. That's a 900 ft. drop we're considering, or 274.3 meters.

WTC7 was probably about 500 feet from WTC1, as the Winter Garden is around 600 or 650, and WTC7 is just a little closer than that. That's 152.4 meters.

So we have 36,000 kg traveling 274.3m vertically and 152.4m laterally, as an estimation very played up in favor of the "official" side. Using trig, that's 313.8m actual displacement at an angle of 29 degrees where 0 degrees is straight down.

The force acting straight down on the object is equal to the acceleration of gravity times the mass of the object (Newton's law: F=ma), or 352,800 Newtons. We don't know the lateral force the mass was ejected with, but we can figure the average net force anyway because we know the angle between the force of gravity and the final net force, which should be 29 degrees. If I make a mistake here, I'm counting on you to be on my back, Griff! lol. And then you could also find the average lateral force as the "x component", but there's no point in it.

352,800N with an angle of 29 between it and the net force should mean the net force is equal to about 403,400N.

We can refine the actual data to make it more realistic.

Like Griff said, it's a start. That's about it. We don't have any idea how much work would've been needed to establish any amount of damage to WTC7's structure.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Good work BsBray. I wish I had the time that you do. LOL So, we have a force now. Work equals force times distance. What should we make the distance? I say to be conservative, we take the distance as the width of the building (would be way conservative). Does this sound right? I'm counting on you BsBray to make sure I don't screw up also.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Buildings do not fall straight down due to fire. Show me video of any other time that has happened in the world, then figure the odds of it happening 3 times in one day. If you think its probable then I suggest you buy a lottery ticket.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Oh, and here is another tidbit of info, prior to 9-11 no steel building HAD EVER COLLASPED DUE TO FIRE. I wonder what the odds would have been in Vegas betting on Tower 7 coming down?



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by kleverone
Buildings do not fall straight down due to fire.


At the risk of sounding a bit pedantic I have to disagree with you. You see, the point is that EVERYTHING falls straight down whatever the cause. Yep, that's right, apples, people, buildings they all fall straight down...

unless some specific force acting on them makes them go somewhere else.

Try it for yourself, pick up anything you like, hold it at arms length and let go. (I wouldn't recommend trying this with the pet gerbil or the wife but you get my drift). What happens, well, assuming it's not so light like a feather or a tissue that it is affected by the resistance of the air, it falls straight down doesn't it?. What's more, basic physics dictates that it will do this every single time until you introduce a new force to the equation.

So if you are looking for an explanation of why those buildings fell the way they did don't start from the premise that they should have toppled all over the place or done something exciting. They should have fallen straight down except to the extent that they were pushed around by explosive or concussive forces, other things being in the way etc. and the fact that they did not fall as the immediate effect of impacts means that the loss of structural integrity resulting from the ongoing fires, after the impacts, would result in a simple vertical collapse until another new force was introduced.





[edit on 8-3-2007 by timeless test]



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join