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: 11
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
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.


Try this for yourself. Place a table beneath the object before you let go. Does the object fall through the table or bounce off? It's called Newton's third law.




posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   


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


You mean like reinforced concrete and thick steel beams? Give me a break!

If fire and debris damaged half the building, why would the entire building collapse at the same time? Use your head.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GriffTry this for yourself. Place a table beneath the object before you let go. Does the object fall through the table or bounce off? It's called Newton's third law.

That kind of depends on the strength of the table, its structural integrity, and the mass of the object but in principle, of course, you are dead right which is why I also wrote the bit you forgot to quote...

"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."

Like I said, I was at risk of being a bit pedantic but the point I was making was that to begin to understand why the buildings fell as they did you have to start from the premise that they will fall straight down until something makes them do otherwise.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Double post, sorry. Real one's below.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Work equals force times distance.


Ah, lol, that's what I originally figured, and came up with what equated to around 58 pounds of TNT, but then I realized I had only calculated the work done to move the mass through the air.

I don't think work is going to help us, we'll have to use other physics, because mechanical work is only technically performed when something is moved. What we want to know is how much those steel beams were resisting the moving mass, or how much energy it would take to compromise them, and as far as I know, friction never really does any positive mechanical work, in the same way that the normal force never does any work either.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
You are probably correct BsBray. I'm not a physics guy. How about impact force? Could we convert that to work? Any physics people want to help us out?



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test

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.


TT you're way off here. Yes, gravity works in such a way that things in FREEFALL fall straight down, but something like a building follows the PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE.

The path of least resistance is not through the network of steel that is the building itself, it's through the surrounding air. So, by definition, the building would topple, not collapse straight down.

Obviously, the building's structure will also not simply disintegrate like a house of cards while toppling over--the structural integrity of the grid of steel trusses, floors and columns does not simply give way all at once when a building collapses--unless it is a CD.

The building structure also simply doesn't go limp--in any random collapse, there would be parts of the building that would retain their integrity while others failed, creating a messy, lopsided collapse and leaving portions of the structure standing, other pieces of the building--most, probably--essentially intact. You'd probably have had a slump somewhere, and the whole structure would have keeled off to one side and crashed into the facade of a nearby building.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottagoTT you're way off here. Yes, gravity works in such a way that things in FREEFALL fall straight down, but something like a building follows the PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE.


Nope, I think you'll find that I'm bang on actually. Mind you, that doesn't mean that just about everything you say above also holds good.

The point I am making is that some express surprise that stuff falls straight down which is a totally erroneous proposition. Everything will constantly strive to fall straight down and will only stop doing so when another force comes into play and it will resume falling straight down again when that force goes away.

Now you may suggest that the ejection of material from the towers indicates that other forces were at work and, of course, your're right and those forces may have been explosives or pehaps just other forms of stored energy, who knows?

I was, as I have said, being a bit pedantic but I do think that it is important to bear in mind when trying to rationalise collapse that in the absence of other factors the material would go vertically earthwards, the tricky bit is understanding what forces were at play to make them do anything else which, unquestionably, they did.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
TT, sorry, but there's no logic to what you say.

Structural steel is one hell of an impediment to even structural steel. It's going to deflect, portions are going to resist, and it's going to topple. UNLESS all the supports are cut at once and it freefalls.

You're actually arguing FOR controlled demolition there.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test

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...



At the risk of kicking a dead horse, you can see from the above posts that I and almost everyone else here disagrees with you assumption. I'm familiar with Newtons law of gravity, what I'm not familiar with is how a steel structured buliding with a web like design not only collasped straight down but became the third steel building to ever totally collaspe right behind towers 1 & 2. Now does that seem suspect? Or should I "move along, nothing to see hear"?



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
I've said it before - I'll say it again, the debate is over. We won! They can't logically refute the observable evidence.

...they never could.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by Smack]



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
We won!


Hang on for the ride, we're just getting started.


kix

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Well for once this time the pandora´s´Box is open now if WTC was CD so did the WTC I and II and most probably the other so called terrorist attacks...so what was 9/11?

A coup d etat?
A Neo Con agenda...
A twin party agenda?
Simply control and lossing the freedom on the constitution?

ALL OF THE ABOVE?

hang on ...we are in for a hell of a ride...



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I definitely agree with this statement^


[edit on 8-3-2007 by crowpruitt]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test

Originally posted by gottagoTT you're way off here. Yes, gravity works in such a way that things in FREEFALL fall straight down, but something like a building follows the PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE.


Nope, I think you'll find that I'm bang on actually.


Did you just say no to the laws of physics? Holy stink hole batman!



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by kix
Well for once this time the pandora´s´Box is open now if WTC was CD so did the WTC I and II and most probably the other so called terrorist attacks...so what was 9/11?

A coup d etat?
A Neo Con agenda...
A twin party agenda?
Simply control and lossing the freedom on the constitution?

ALL OF THE ABOVE?

hang on ...we are in for a hell of a ride...


A forward step to the new world order. Bush senior had newspapper advertisments with the skull and bones new world order emblems when he was president, now, bush junior is in charge, and is the puppet of his dad.

Once Iraq and Iran are out of the picture, we are one step closer to a new world order.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
Everything will constantly strive to fall straight down and will only stop doing so when another force comes into play and it will resume falling straight down again when that force goes away.


Other forces almost always do stop gravity from doing work. How many things around you are falling straight down towards the Earth right now? Not many, I would imagine. That's the same electrostatic force at work as what would keep the WTC towers from falling into themselves rather than falling outward at an angle through the air, and it's orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.


Btw, the majority of debris from both towers ended up outside of their footprints, in a large radius. That not only shows that you are wrong in suggesting that they were physically pulled straight down, but shows how much real lateral force was present on a column-to-column basis for so much of the building's height, on all four sides.

The only natural force I can think of that you might look for is torsion, but see how many ejected perimeter sections you can find that are bent. Yet they were once all solidly connected. That's all you need to know, to know that something is not right with the official explanation.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:09 AM
link   
OK, to clarify my point...

I wasn't particularly making a point either for or against demolition or the official explanation, it was simply that Kleverone's comment which I replied to was was just one of many comments posted on lots of threads which said, essentially, that things dont fall straight down like that. Well yes they do.

My point was and still is that a lot of arguments about the collapse appear to start from the premise that for a collapse to be vertical it needs some assistance which is fundementally incorrect, in fact for debris to be thrown all over the place some additional force is necessary which may be, as I posted in the beginning, explosivce forces or immoveable obstructions, (like the rest of the structure), or a whole host of other things.

In simplistic terms I was saying that if you want to look for evidence of a demolition you may be better off looking for what force ejected material sideways out of the towers rather than what made them fall in a way which is entirely consistent with Newtonian physics. A point which bsbray picked up on perfectly well above.

Perhaps what has confused some posters is that whilst I am not generally in the controlled demolition camp I am perfectly prepared to consider the evidence as it may support or debunk either side of the argument and sadly there are more than a few who are not.

However, I am a little intrigued that since I made both this comment and an earlier one which questioned why a perpetrator of demolition would take the time and effort to stage a collapse which bore many similarities to a controlled demolition rather than one which fell in an almighty messy heap a number of supporters of demolition have been at pains to point out that much if not most of the debris did NOT actually fall within the footprint of the buildings which has so often been a staple argument of the demolition theorists.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Gotcha, timeless.


Originally posted by timeless test
My point was and still is that a lot of arguments about the collapse appear to start from the premise that for a collapse to be vertical it needs some assistance which is fundementally incorrect,


Well, I may be misinterpretting you but if someone said a tower couldn't possibly come straight down upon itself vertically (ie symmetrically, all corners, core, etc. move down together at the same time) then that would be incorrect, obviously, because that's what happened to WTC1 very clearly when it began collapsing. But in the given circumstances, saying that a building could come straight down like that instantaneously from chaotic structural damage and pockets of fire is, realistically, impossible.

Whatever mechanism you define, to try to have it all line up like that on its own, so all the supports fail together at the same instant, not going to happen. The possibility that it could is a triviality, like saying quantum physics could allow my hand to pass through my face if everything worked out right on a quantum level. Odds are astronomical against it.


However, I am a little intrigued that since I made both this comment and an earlier one which questioned why a perpetrator of demolition would take the time and effort to stage a collapse which bore many similarities to a controlled demolition rather than one which fell in an almighty messy heap a number of supporters of demolition have been at pains to point out that much if not most of the debris did NOT actually fall within the footprint of the buildings which has so often been a staple argument of the demolition theorists.


Actually, in conventional demolitions the point is to land the building in its footprint so they won't fall all over adjacent property and damage it, which is a very tricky to do. WTC7 fell into its footprint like a conventional demo, but you've seen that neither of the towers did. The tower collapses in general show things that suggest explosive force or enormous heat from some unknown source or uncanny symmetry or whatever (all indicating the coordinated use of explosives), but lining these two buildings up point-by-point with conventional demolitions won't show that many clear similarities because of how completely different the priorities and technology are, so I don't think that's a good way to approach this stuff anyway.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Hmmmmm,

I'm not sure that the musings of Isaac Newton could or should be described as a triviality. I have already conceded to pedantry from the very first line but that is as far as I'm prepared to go.


(God but I hate using those things).

As for buildings falling into footprints I was simply pointing out a general inconsistency. I have lost count how many times I have read that the buildings fell in this way, including the towers and it is a huge generalisation and over simplification which has always irritated me. I was pointing out that since I made the two observations I did that I have noted a number of posts suddenly agreeing that buildings did not fall into their footprints.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join