NY's Finest Tour Guide Pokes Major Holes in the CD Theory, page 12

privacy

Pages: << 9 10 11 12 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 17 times

reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 03:35 PM by Swampfox46_1999

And BsBray, I refer you to any number of the videos that day, that show columns of the towers, hundreds of feet high, falling over like a tree thats being chopped down.......

reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 03:37 PM by Swampfox46_1999

BTW, I passed physics with an "A"......I get a kick out of the "physicists" on ATS that discuss the subject.

reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 03:52 PM by nicepants

Originally posted by bsbray11
You don't understand physics. The only way to make a piece move outwards in the first place is by a non-conservative force being applied to it

If you have a metal beam that is, for example, 10 feet tall, and you begin to apply vertical compression to that beam, once you apply enough force, it WILL MOVE LATERALLY. It has to...it won't just get shorter and shorter. If you apply the force strongly enough, that beam might even break. (You can easily illustrate a similar effect by compressing a piece of spaghetti...applying a vertical compression force results in pieces being projected laterally)

reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 06:04 PM by Haroki

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by ANOK

that link didnt work to any photos.

OK here ya go...

Looking at the ground layout, I'd seriously question the 600ft claim. I could believe 600 ft to the far side of the Winter Garden, but the near side looks to be around 450ish.

I think what everybody's dying to hear is an estimate of how much explosives would be needed to fling these exterior columns under your scenario of explosives being used. Go ahead and use the 450ish distance and hell, go the full 1300 ft high to do your calcs. That'll skew the results into needing a smaller amount, but it'll still be absurdly high....

Let us know what you find.

reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 06:56 PM by Damocles

hey guys, been away all this week so im going to try to catch up all at once. i see some great points raised by both sides of the debate as always, keep up the good work

next id just like to say that in regards to many general questions on demo, and some of the questions posed to me, ive already answered most of them in the debate thread ive linked ad nauseum, so regardless if you agree with me or not, i challenge each of you to go read it. there is some good stuff i put in there on general demo knowledge (along with some citations so you dont have to simply take my word for it, id never expect that)

lastly before i get on with my dissertation, id just like to say to griff, again, im not picking on you, its just that you consistantly raise the best points for discussion. go you

reply to post by CaptainObvious

well thats a subjective question CO. if youre talking about lb/lb then they wont be all that much different, but it takes much less ordinance to do the same job using LSC's. so to take and compare 1lb tnt to 1lb actual HE yeild for an LSC the lsc would actually be louder (not significantly overall but still) but it would take a fraction of the yeild to cut the same steel. that make sense?

reply to post by Leo Strauss

well leo, ive said in several posts before this that this is the ONE clip of that day that even keeps me open minded about a CD.
HOWEVER, having said that, lets examine it real fast. its obvious that it took place after at least one of the towers collapsed, but theres no real reference to what it could be. could have been a ruptured gas main that filled a room and hit its LEL and detonated. could ahve been a steam pipe for all we know. given acoustics and the fact that its on a camera mike...could have even been part of a building collapsing (i dont think that one but lets face it, it COULD have been) and yes, it could have been a bomb.

but, the bottom line is that we JUST DONT KNOW!! there isnt enough of a frame of reference for it.

ill go on record once again and say that it IS a very interesting clip and its one of the only ones thats kept my mind open on this topic. but try as anyone might, one simply cannot build a case around one arbitrary video clip no matter how strange it is.

reply to post by mastermind77

are you speaking of the video that they had to "time correct" by 9 full seconds? we're supposed to to accept an admittedly edited video as proof of anything? and just how fast does sound travel that they had to correct by NINE seconds?

sorry that video doesnt prove anything to me.

reply to post by Griff

griff, good find. though i cant seem to load the patent images from the uspto.gov website but im working on that.
though i would like to piont out that you stated that "They don't give out patents to things that don't work." and id challenge you to search the patent office site just for fun for things like "flying saucers" and "perpetual motion" devices.

you dont always need a working prototype to get a patent. sometimes guys will patent things based on theory so taht when tech catches up they're already in on it.

reply to post by Griff

lol well also not to nitpick but whats easier to create? an overpressure or negative pressure? but to actually answer your question, yes, the same problems might occur but to a lesser degree. IF the "squibs" were in fact windows popping due to overpressure caused by the collapse, the massive holes in teh buildings would have already been "sealed" by the falling upper floors yeah? also, regardless of if the overpressure was from air due to a piston action of the upper floors or from explosives, we did see an opposite of what i said should happen in a negative pressure scenario. the windows blew and the walls really didnt.

of course i could be wrong.

Originally posted by Haroki
Actually, it would be interesting to get a report from that Danish demo guy on how much explosives would be needed to cut all the columns on a single floor so that we would have something to gauge it.

why bother with the danish guy? go back a few pages and click the link i put in for the debate i had. ive already done the math. 172lbs/floor to cut EVERY coulumn, which segways nicely to griffs next post which was:

This is a logical fallacy that I see often.

People believe that fires that got the steel to loose only half of it's strength is what caused the collapses. Why would we need to sever EVERY single column to achieve the same?

well we've discussed this before, without legit tech drawings we cant say just how many would have to go, but what i do know is that for each one, assuming they DID use LSC's (simply because it is the most efficient way to do it) you need 3.7lbs/column (thats based on teh "leaked" plans and then based on the dimensions of the core columns on the 66th floor and we all know they got bigger and thicker as you went down teh building so you'd need more HE to cut them) and IMO any more than 50lbs per floor and they might as well have put up a huge neon sign saying "WE JUST SET OFF EXPLOSIVES IN THIS BUILDING!!" so that means that any more than 13 columns and the covert side IMO is shot to hell.

reply to post by Griff

couldnt agree more my friend.

originally posted by griff:All this could be set up farther down from the impact zones so I don't want to hear "what about the planes and fire ruining the explosives/thermite". Not saying you CO.

lol gee might that be me then?

id hope not cuz im pretty sure we've discussed that i do agree that IF it was a cd they could cut lower and it would still fail at the impact zones

but, the fire/crash etc MOST LIKELY would have damaged any of their ordinance packages IN THE IMPACT zones.

As far as no blasting caps found etc. I was watching "Future Weapons" not long ago. They were showing mortars that had like 8 bombs attached. These bombs had sensors on them that would find targets. When a target was found, the bombs would explode with molten copper and burn anything around. If the bombs didn't find a target, they specifically said that the bomb would detonate in the air above.

Why did I tell you this? Because they specifically said that no material is left to be collected by the enemy. That means mortar shells, sensors, copper, bomb encasings etc. So, the fact they didn't find things doesn't automatically negate it in my mind. Especially after watching that show.

yes, but the reason they detonate in the air isnt to simply destroy the package, its so that A) theres no UEO left in the area that local children can find and play with and then die and B) so that the enemy cant find it laying around and use its HE components for an IED to kill soldiers later. there would still be bits of blasting cap, casing etc left. it doesnt just vaporize.

reply to post by LaBTop

im interested in what you would have expected to see from what you would think of as just the collapse. cuz if it was a thermobaric id have expected to see the smoke/dust/debris wave being expelled from the building much faster with an audible report that should have been obvious to everyone for distances in the miles. but thats just me. i have nothing to back that up other than opinion so on this one im going to just have to say i disagree with you.

reply to post by ANOK

ok, for a second im going to just totally agree with you about the need for external force to eject such heavy chunks as far as they were ejected. but, im going to pose a question to you: given that the inside of the building was pretty wide open, how large of an explosion (if it was from HE) would you think it would take to eject said chunks of debris? ive never needed to move debris in that fashion so my reference materials are worthless to do a real calculation and when it comes to the math of explosions i hate speculating TOO much, but given that the overpressure of teh explosion needs something to force against (equal and opposite and all that) wouldnt you agree it would be a REALLY big explosion? does what we witness from both a visual and auditory standpoint support this? i dont think it does but again, just my opinion, no math to back it up. if you happen to have any math on it (from an explosives standpoint) id love to see it. im not so arrogant as to think i cant learn from someone who's done thier research as extensivly as some of you have.

but one thing everyone can consider. ever go to drive a nail and hit it just slightly off center and have it take off like a bullet across yer work area? no one said that everything coming down in that collapse was 100% straight down and on center to what it was hitting....not a great analogy but i think it makes my piont

reply to post by Matthew5012

all i can ever say to this comment (many many many have made it) is that if the buildings fell faster than freefall, why was there a large amount of debris falling even faster than that? and no, it wasnt explosives, theres NO evidence to support that it was.

[edit on 23-11-2007 by Damocles]

reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 08:46 PM by Damocles

@ griff: here is an example of what i meant when i said that just because a patent is issued doesnt mean its totally legit.

though if this one is legit i so want one...who doesnt want their own flying saucer? hehe

reply posted on 23-11-2007 @ 09:10 PM by bsbray11

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And BsBray, I refer you to any number of the videos that day, that show columns of the towers, hundreds of feet high, falling over like a tree thats being chopped down.......

"Falling over" from the base is not the same as being physically ejected and flying through the air.

Do we agree, or do you think something is wrong with this reasoning too? In other words, do we agree on a difference between rotational torque resulting from (a) gravity and (b) an imbalance of the tilting columns, and a non-conservative impact force that can actually knock an object flying through the air?

BTW, I passed physics with an "A"......I get a kick out of the "physicists" on ATS that discuss the subject.

You get a kick out of telling people that an object that tilts over is equivalent to an object sent flying freely through the air?

Originally posted by nicepants
If you have a metal beam that is, for example, 10 feet tall, and you begin to apply vertical compression to that beam, once you apply enough force, it WILL MOVE LATERALLY.

Yes, about a radius that it is physically attached to (technically it moves in a circular motion). This is a completely different concept than the forces that send objects flying freely in any given direction, hundreds of feet, in a parabolic arc, from a combination of gravity and momentum imparted theoretically from a collision.

If that still doesn't make sense to you two, show me where the steel laying on the Winter Garden "tipped over" from. Once it loses connection to the point it's rotating about, that rotation is going to change. It's going to drop, not fly outwards laterally with great momentum.

[edit on 23-11-2007 by bsbray11]

reply posted on 25-11-2007 @ 06:42 PM by Swampfox46_1999

"Falling over" from the base is not the same as being physically ejected and flying through the air.

And yet...still no proof that that particular hunk of wreckage WAS ejected, as opposed to falling over.....

reply posted on 25-11-2007 @ 07:56 PM by bsbray11

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
And yet...still no proof that that particular hunk of wreckage WAS ejected, as opposed to falling over.....

Here is your proof:

Here is more proof yet:

That hole (2 holes actually, and a bunch of debris out front) is where columns ejected from WTC1 landed. It didn't "tilt over," or else there would be a hole in the shape of a line cutting into the Winter Garden, coming from the direction of WTC1.

I don't think you understand that if a group of members is sent laterally from the building, that isn't going to happen from toppling over like a tree all the way down until where it landed. These were perimeter column sections. There is a concept of "momentum" that is a VECTOR, and if you really know what that means then you know why it's a problem that something so big is being sent out without being connected to anything anymore, not tilting or leaning, but flying through the air like so much of this debris is:

Rotate this 90 degrees and you have a representation of a column sticking up in the air:

When it leans, gravity will accelerate its motion around the fulcrum only!, and if connection to this fulcrum is ever lost, it results in a tangential velocity that determines the momentum of the object. It will never quite reach 9.8m/s^2, either, but it will approach it as it rotates further out and gravity "pulls" it more.

The debris seen flying out in these photos,

which happens to represent the majority of the masses in the towers, is coming out of the building with a horizontal component to the momentum that I'm not buying as coming from a local rotation about a fulcrum only 12 feet below.

Pretty much, the proof that you are wrong is that a rotating perimeter column will not just break off and fly out 600 feet in the air. It has to be given horizontal momentum to travel horizontally, because gravity is only down and rotational motion stops when the fulcrum is gone.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by bsbray11]

reply posted on 25-11-2007 @ 08:21 PM by bsbray11

Along with the two images I posted above, consider this representation of the columns on the exterior face:

It's nothing pretty to look at but hopefully it'll at least put us on the same page.

Is that not a disproof of what you're suggesting put those columns on the Winter Garden? I ask this rhetorically because I know that it is. I'm just wanting to see if you still want to argue about it.

Just take it in conjunction with these two images:

For anyone who missed it in the image, it would take 48 floors of perimeter columns laid out horizontally to reach the Winter Garden, if rotational torque is supposed to be the explanation. The buildings were only 110 stories tall, total.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by bsbray11]

reply posted on 25-11-2007 @ 08:28 PM by Griff

Originally posted by nicepants
If you have a metal beam that is, for example, 10 feet tall, and you begin to apply vertical compression to that beam, once you apply enough force, it WILL MOVE LATERALLY. It has to...it won't just get shorter and shorter. If you apply the force strongly enough, that beam might even break. (You can easily illustrate a similar effect by compressing a piece of spaghetti...applying a vertical compression force results in pieces being projected laterally)

Where does this extra weight come from when the towers could hold their own weight and then some?

What you say is true, but, IMO doesn't apply.

BTW, steel acts in a very different way than spaghetti. Steel buckles (but stays intact) not snaps like spaghetti.

Elastic deformation
This type of deformation is reversible. Once the forces are no longer applied, the object returns to its original shape. As the name implies, elastic (rubber) has a rather large elastic deformation range. Soft thermoplastics and metals have moderate elastic deformation ranges while ceramics, crystals, and hard thermosetting plastics undergo almost no elastic deformation.

Plastic deformation
This type of deformation is not reversible. However, an object in the plastic deformation range will first have undergone elastic deformation, which is reversible, so the object will return part way to its original shape. Soft thermoplastics have a rather large plastic deformation range as do ductile metals such as copper, silver, and gold. Steel does, too, but not iron. Hard thermosetting plastics, rubber, crystals, and ceramics have minimal plastic deformation ranges. Perhaps the material with the largest plastic deformation range is wet chewing gum, which can be stretched dozens of times its original length.

Fracture
This type of deformation is also not reversible. A break occurs after the material has reached the end of the elastic, and then plastic, deformation ranges. At this point forces accumulate until they are sufficient to cause a fracture. All materials will eventually fracture, if sufficient forces are applied.

Misconceptions
A popular misconception is that all materials that bend are "weak" and all those which don't are "strong". In reality, many materials which undergo large elastic and plastic deformations, such as steel, are able to absorb stresses which would cause brittle materials, such as glass, with minimal elastic and plastic deformation ranges, to break. There is even a parable to describe this observation (paraphrased below):

"The mighty oak stands strong and firm before the wind, while the willow yields to the slightest breeze. However, in the strongest storm, the oak will break while the willow will bend, and thus survive. So, in the end, which is the stronger of the two?"

en.wikipedia.org...

I believe the NIST states that the steel underwent plastic deformations. But, if they did fracture, I'd like to know how falling floors produce outward deflections.

reply posted on 7-12-2007 @ 08:40 PM by eldimoni

I am open to all possible explanations of what happened, be it a controlled demo or actual structural failure, but i gotta say this video doesn't really prove anything in my opinion.
Based on all available evidence so far, from both sides, im tending to lean towards it being some kind of controlled event. There seem to be too many questions which have insufficient explanations. That coupled with a seemingly lackluster official investigation by people who should really have left no stone unturned.
I think sometimes a feeling of patriotism may interfere with the ability to be objective. Just an observation.