Popular Mechanics responds to Rosie the Ranter, page 13
Pages: <<  10    11    12    13  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 17-4-2007 @ 06:00 PM by Griff
Originally posted by amfirst
For the building to hold, the impacted floor would have had to catch 40 floors above, when it drop. I don't think that particular floor was made to catch a drop like that.


No, but the columns that were designed to already hold up that load were. And the columns wouldn't have experienced a "drop". The only way to have the columns "drop" is to use something to sever them. Are you suggesting controlled demolition? That's the only way to have columns drop into themselves straight down. Otherwise, they buckle. But, the problem is that a stiff structure tends to buckle all in the same direction. Meaning a slumping of the building to one side. Then, using the angle of internal friction that everything (except for large steel buildings on 9/11) has, we can assume that the "cap" would have sheared off at a given angle. I don't know the angles for steel and concrete but sand is around 25-35. That means when you pour sand into a pile, the natural angle that it will hold itself up is 25-35 (depending on the type of sand or anything for that matter).

So, two things here that are wrong with the official account. The concrete was pulverized to sand sized particles. Where is the cone shaped mound of concrete that would have settled there? How did the columns telescope into themselves?

Disclaimer: If anyone can prove my hypothesis wrong, feel free. That is not a challenge. Just, if anyone can prove me wrong, I'm all for it.

Edit to add: Rosie To be on topic.

[edit on 4/17/2007 by Griff]


reply posted on 30-6-2007 @ 02:17 AM by ANOK
Also the rate of speed seems to accelerate rather than slow down, as it should have.

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

Source

(note NIST says 9 seconds for building 2, faster than free fall in a vacuum)

Basic physics 101...

An object can only fully give up its potential energy, and turn into kinetic energy, in a vacuum with no resistance. So the towers, as they collapsed, should have been experiencing massive resistance from the lower floors that were undamaged. There is no arguing that. So the buildings should not have been able to fully give up their potential energy.
The problem is for the towers and building 7 to have fallen so quickly, all of their potential energy would have to have been lost.

Simple equation, follow along now boys and girls...

(I'm pasting this whole thing because I know a lot of you don't bother looking at links)

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds (Ed: Note NIST said 9 secs for WTC2) to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

But that can only occur in a vacuum.

Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
(Source)

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.


If dropped at the same time, which would reach the ground first?...


And that's just talking about air resistance, remember we also have thousands of tons of steel bolted and welded together in the path of the falling building. You don't think that should have created massive resistance?

C'mon guys, you still think it was jet fuel? That's a good one, eh?

[edit on 30/6/2007 by ANOK]


reply posted on 30-6-2007 @ 03:15 AM by SkipShipman
Originally posted by esdad71
Nothing has been debunked, nad the Popular Mechanics and Nova both explained it in great detail, amazingly without thermite, reptilians or laser beams. She is a media whore, and wanted more attention than Anna Nicole.


Ad Hominem attacks are well explained in any number of areas. Commonly in political campaigns and so forth this strategy yields votes, but the facts are the facts. You usually do not need to resort of Ad Hominem attacks when your arguments are sound. Most 911 researchers try to avoid the trap, which is a sign of desperation from those who attempt to defend the official story. That old slap 'em on the back and ridicule strategy will not erase any facts whatsoever, nor support anything in your weak argument. The proofs it is weak are in the abundant evidence, and your position does not offer a debate. People know something is wrong, and they cannot in any intellectual honesty go along with your approach.



[edit on 30-6-2007 by SkipShipman]


reply posted on 30-6-2007 @ 03:36 AM by ANOK
Am I reading this right?...

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

NIST Fact Sheet

So they are admitting the structure bellow the impact level offered little resistance? (actually it offered no resistance but...) And they saying it fell as it did because it offered little resistance? So where is their explanation of why it offered little resistance? They don't have one, their analysis is incomplete. Based on missing out one huge freakin problem, why did the lower structure offer no resistance. They have no answer because they didn't consider planted explosives.

And then they say this...
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

NIST fact sheet

The floors above the impact zone DID NOT fall on the lower floors. That is a total fallacy which is easy to see in any of the collapse videos. WTC 2 is the best one, the top was rotating and tilting, how did it drop on lower floors causing a perfectly symmetrical, all 4 corners at the same time collapse when it was shifting at an angle was anything but symmetrical. The thought is ludicrous....I laugh in NISTs face, I fart in their general direction, who do they think they're fooling? You?
Pages: <<  10    11    12    13  >>    ^^TOP^^



Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 10 days ago with 48 member flags
9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 2 days ago with 45 member flags
9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 12 days ago with 43 member flags
What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 6 days ago with 17 member flags
Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 14 days ago with 13 member flags
Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 16 days ago with 9 member flags
British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 6 days ago with 8 member flags