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.

 

the free fall fallacy

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
OK, you know the drill by now. Another popular CD theory is that the WTC buildings fell at free fall speed, which means a pancaking effect is impossible.

As you will see, sound science based on engineering priciples actually shows the towers could have pancaked in 12 or 13 seconds, and the italian debunker does it again, showing the tower could have taken as long as 16 seconds to fall.
Nobody knows exactly ow long it took because of the debris cloud, but if free fall is 9 seconds, engineering tells us a pancaking could occur in 12 or 13 seconds, and a video shows it may have been as long as 16 seconds, you can no longer make the claim a pancake is impossible because of the free fall argument.





here's a bonus for you. The largest building ever razed by CD is only 26 stories tall. It took 12 people 24 days to load that tiny building with the necessary explosives to bring it down. How long would it take to load WTC 1,2 and 7 ? Even according to the Loose Change guys, the heightened security and bomb-sniffing dogs had only been lifted for 5 days.

here is the link for this challenge.

please read Dr. Greening's paper.
please review the quick and dirty physics provided by the blogger.
please watch the video
please stop using the lame idea that pancaking is impossible because the towers fell at free fall speeds




posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
How long would it take to load WTC 1,2 and 7 ? Even according to the Loose Change guys, the heightened security and bomb-sniffing dogs had only been lifted for 5 days.



If all the wiring was allready in place, then how long to place just the explosives and/or thermate? I ride the fence here about the CD theories but if there was a security lapse just prior to 911 then that raises a flag in my opinion.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
I don't think the Pancake Theory is preposterous.
But what I do have a problem with is the REASON
for the pancake. They said Jet Fuel Fire !!!
That's what I have the problem with.
See your other thread entitled "rethinking Thermite"
for illustrations on my theory. Yes, it could pancake
under certain conditions which I point out in my
theory on the other thread



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I have a question:

As the floor material was pulverized into dust and expanded sideways into an ever-increasing cloud volume, what was left to do the crushing? What large smashing object remained to do the smash down and continue pulverizing the floors all the way to the ground when the outer beams were ejected radially, and the concrete floors turned into airborne dust?

[edit on 17-11-2007 by dionysius9]



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
Nobody knows exactly ow long it took because of the debris cloud, but if free fall is 9 seconds, engineering tells us a pancaking could occur in 12 or 13 seconds, and a video shows it may have been as long as 16 seconds, you can no longer make the claim a pancake is impossible because of the free fall argument.


It 'could' if there were not the thing with the missing energy to crash the concret. 12 and 13 sec you can only have if you have about 90% Concrete uncrashed left.
Like you know the observation says that far the oposite almost ALL concrete was crashed. (pulverized). Crashing concrete consumes energy and increases the collaps time which makes the theoretical 12 and 13 sec
impossible because it does Not fit the observation. A fact.

If you don't believe me then check yourself. I already made the calculations.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It becomes even worse if you take the steal structure into account..


NIST gave a collaps time of about 10 and 11 sec in their report. I am glad someone else showed now that this is BS. Now wonder.. this is an offcial report and they not even bothered to give physical possible datas? Not even to speak abaout datas that fit the observation!!
Can you do an investigation any more worse?


[edit on 17-11-2007 by g210b]



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
How long would it take to load WTC 1,2 and 7 ? Even according to the Loose Change guys, the heightened security and bomb-sniffing dogs had only been lifted for 5 days.



If all the wiring was allready in place, then how long to place just the explosives and/or thermate? I ride the fence here about the CD theories but if there was a security lapse just prior to 911 then that raises a flag in my opinion.



There wasn't a security lapse. There had been HEIGHTENED security just prior, due to a bomb threat, but was at normal levels at the time of the attack.

The so-called power down is unsubstantiated. Only 1 guy has claimed this, but noone else has stepped forward. And I've seen a photo of a ticket to the top of the world restaurant on Sat pm, when Scott Forbes said it was off. Guess they had sandwiches in the dark, eh? And SF's claims is that they were changing cabling for the internet anyways. WHy would you need to shut down power for that?



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by g210b

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
Nobody knows exactly ow long it took because of the debris cloud, but if free fall is 9 seconds, engineering tells us a pancaking could occur in 12 or 13 seconds, and a video shows it may have been as long as 16 seconds, you can no longer make the claim a pancake is impossible because of the free fall argument.


It 'could' if there were not the thing with the missing energy to crash the concret. 12 and 13 sec you can only have if you have about 90% Concrete uncrashed left.
Like you know the observation says that far the oposite almost ALL concrete was crashed. (pulverized). Crashing concrete consumes energy and increases the collaps time which makes the theoretical 12 and 13 sec
impossible because it does Not fit the observation. A fact.

If you don't believe me then check yourself. I already made the calculations.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It becomes even worse if you take the steal structure into account..


NIST gave a collaps time of about 10 and 11 sec in their report. I am glad someone else showed now that this is BS. Now wonder.. this is an offcial report and they not even bothered to give physical possible datas? Not even to speak abaout datas that fit the observation!!
Can you do an investigation any more worse?


[edit on 17-11-2007 by g210b]


Damn, that's a lot of calcs.....

Did you finally settle on how much steel and concrete was there?

Did you factor in the force to crush the lightweight concrete used in the floors would take less energy to pulverize it than normal construction concrete?

What about drywall? I don't remember seeing anything about that. I've seen claims that drywall was the most used thing there. So I don't know how you came up with your final weights, but if you used total - steel = concrete, that would be wrong.

ANyways, it appears to me that the collapse to be too chaotic to do a good modeling like that on. I prefer to use video evidence. Does your final estimated jive with what you see here?



[edit on 17-11-2007 by Haroki]



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Haroki

Damn, that's a lot of calcs.....

Did you finally settle on how much steel and concrete was there?

Did you factor in the force to crush the lightweight concrete used in the floors would take less energy to pulverize it than normal construction concrete?

What about drywall? I don't remember seeing anything about that. I've seen claims that drywall was the most used thing there. So I don't know how you came up with your final weights, but if you used total - steel = concrete, that would be wrong.

ANyways, it appears to me that the collapse to be too chaotic to do a good modeling like that on. I prefer to use video evidence. Does your final estimated jive with what you see here?

[edit on 17-11-2007 by Haroki]


Glad to see someone actaully took a look.

That was one of the last calculation I have done:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But improved it a little after:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

to this:

v1.2 presettings:
- 96kton steel
- 460kton concrete
- 50kton additional payload (new since v1.2, and a rough guess by me)
+ greenings steel buckling/bending and elastic's lose (CollisionEnergyUsedForPowderingFactor set to 0.3881);

and this are the' final' numbers I took.

Still the same results:

physical hard limits (without demolision help not breakable) selfcollapsing time:
-> 12.3 sec for the south tower
-> 13.4 sec for the north tower

Yes I simulated all the concrete as light concrete which reuqires less energy to crash than the usual concrete.

The amount of concrete I settlet with 400000yardcubic that I got from several sources. (In my very first calculation I took too much concrete)

TotalConcrete = 460000000; %v1.2 the most likely value [kg] 400000yardqubic * (ytm * ytm * ytm) * 1500kg/meterqubic st12.startlogic.com... and hypertextbook.com...
greenings value (1500kg/meter qubic) 911myths.com...

Everything is eighter Steel (can buckle)
or concrete (crashing, pulverizing, with the light concret value)
or additional payload (only counted as wight, no energy consumption)
(dicede yourself where you want to put the dry walls)

However this wight distributes only comes into account if you care about what was observed: allmost all concrete gone/pulverisized.

The absolut physical minimum collapsing time you get by takeing no concrete crashing, no steal buckling, nothing just the plain law of momentum and THIS leads to the

12.3seconds respective 13.4 seconds.

as a theoretical minimum that in reality is NOT Possible because it clearly contradicts the observation of the ammount of concrete pulverisated.

If you take the Observation into account than this means you have to check the colapes time value where the almosta ll concrete is pulverisised and that is far left in my graphics.



Like you can see the Collapse Time goes way up. And it becomes even worse if you improve the model and take the steel structure into account.
Dashed line.

The Collapse Time I personel observed in varios videos is about 14 sec.

And this leads to a contradiction because you have to fullfill the observated concrete left and the observated collapse time and like you see in my graphics according to my calculations this is not possible and it becomes especially clear if you simulate a more realistic model. (dashed line)

You can solve the conflict with additional energy only. (In what form ever I do not speculate) And this is the result I got out of this although I never aimed for this.

The observation contradicts selfcollapsing. Additonal energy is required to fullfill the observation.



[edit on 18-11-2007 by g210b]



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by dionysius9
 
I agree Dionysius9,thats what gets me.If the weight from the floors aabove did the crushing of the floors below,we would have seen something along the lines of this:



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
OK, you know the drill by now. Another popular CD theory is that the WTC buildings fell at free fall speed, which means a pancaking effect is impossible.

As you will see, sound science based on engineering priciples actually shows the towers could have pancaked in 12 or 13 seconds...


Prof. Kuttler shows that pancaking at free fall speed is impossible in the Journal of 9/11 Studies (and also cites others who prove the same). Nothing would have been holding the floors up to reach speeds of 12-13 seconds in a gravity collapse. This proves controlled demolition.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by g210b
 


Nice work.

But your concrete tonnage is waaaaaay off. Greening computes 627 tons/floor, including the cores area. 627 x 110 = 70,000 tons, not 400,000.

Review your source about the amount of concrete again - "400,000 tons for the entire building". More than likely, it's 70,000 tons in the floors for each building = 140,000 tons + 260,000 tons for the basements/slurry walls/foundation, etc = 400,000 tons.

At any rate, 70,000 tons is the correct amount.

Looking forward to what you come up with.






posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   
as for the set up and how long, well...... when the president's brother, marvin bush is the person in charge of the security for the buildings ( as well as american airlines and dulles airport) and the security guards, one has all the time in the world! that grave yard shift when very few people in the building would be a great opportunity to place charges over time. after all, who would ever suspect security guards just doing their job patrolling and testing things!



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by blackthorne
 


Except, if you had bothered to do any research of your own, you would have found that Marvin Bush was a member of the Board of Directors of Securacom. He had very little to do with day to day operations and was not the "man in charge" at the WTC.

PLUS, he left Securacom in June 2000, MONTHS before his brother became President.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinityoreilly

If all the wiring was allready in place, then how long to place just the explosives and/or thermate?


And exactly how was all the wiring already in place? When they built it?

Let's play devils advocate though. 2 times 110 floors, with at least 20 plants of explosives throughout each acre of floor. That's at least 4,400 plants and let's say that on average it takes 20 minutes to place a charge. That's about 1,446 man hours needed to plant or about the equivalent of 60 days 24/7 of work to plant the charges. Lets figure they could only plant during the 11 PM to 4 AM time frame each night so as not to raise concerns and it takes over 289 days to do. Even with a large crew, which would have been detected, it would have taken a substantial time to do.

Sorry the logistics of the CD crowd just don't add up.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
My beef with the "pancake theory" is that it does absolutely nothing but ignore the existence of the central core structure.

The necessary requirement for the pancake to be plausible is for there to be a gap between floors to allow acceleration. The central core structure did not allow such gap.

It's like you can't drop a bowling ball through 500 stacked sheets of paper - but put a nice 2ft. gap between each sheet and pull them tight - and that ball will flop right through each piece.

I really would like to know what you think about this: If you took WTC2 and placed it 20ft. above WTC1 and dropped it, how long would it take the ground floor of WTC2 to hit the ground? 10 seconds?

My own personal opinion leads to a toppling of WTC2... but to each his own.


NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.


source



The tilt of the top of the south tower (during collapse) would have displaced the center of balance of the top. This should have caused the top to topple over instead of collapsing completely symmetrically through the bottom 2/3rds of the building.

[edit on 11/19/07 by Angry Danish]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I'm not convinced at all that the simulation was done right, based on the video. For one, the connections of the trusses to the columns could be breaking even before the pancake stack would reach that particular level, because the columns were bending out shape and moving out of there positions. The simulation shown does not include that.

When I saw teh collapse (granted it was from a safe distance) it appeared to me that the walls were effectively peeling off, so the point they made in the video about those is kind of moot.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Look at any video of the collapse in slow motion and watch the wreckage cascade down trailing copious amounts of SMOKE as it goes.

Look at the onset of the collapses in any video and watch the way the tops tilt. That is the start of an asymetrical collapse. NOTHING except artificial assistance is going to restore symmetry in a collapse after one starts asymetrically.

Look at the "banana peel" style of the collapse. Large amounts of material are being removed from the load bearing obligations of the lower floors. Remember that those floors had supported the entire weight of the building above them.

At some point the weight and force exerted by collapsing material would be less than what a floor had been supporting for the last 30 years or so anyway. Collapse ends there. Period.

There is no reason whatsoever for a core collapse.

As long as people support the criminals in the Bush administration this discussion is going to go on.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haroki
reply to post by g210b
 


Nice work.

But your concrete tonnage is waaaaaay off. Greening computes 627 tons/floor, including the cores area. 627 x 110 = 70,000 tons, not 400,000.

Review your source about the amount of concrete again - "400,000 tons for the entire building". More than likely, it's 70,000 tons in the floors for each building = 140,000 tons + 260,000 tons for the basements/slurry walls/foundation, etc = 400,000 tons.

At any rate, 70,000 tons is the correct amount.

Looking forward to what you come up with.



Nope it's: 400000yardqubic that's the number I found in various links and. That is the ammount (volume) of what was used for the buildings to build them . I don't think they threw over 85% away..do you?
Just to clarify it doesnt play a role where the concrete in the building is. It plays a role how much in total was in the building and how much of it was left at the end.
I know green's concrete number and I simulated it once with this rather unrealistic numbers in the past. You can bring the hard limit down at where almost all concret is gone (teh 12 and 13 sec however doesnt change) .. and again as soon as you take the steal structure into play you get to a dashed line way above the hard limit.
I don't know if I posted it.. probabily not because the concrete number is not realistic. But check my thread and the links.

I do not simulate this thing again. *) I already close with this all.
But If you like I can upload the program again to rapidshare (i guess it's gone already) so you can play around with it yourself.


*) and I did nevertheless
Heck I wanted to do something else this afternoon..




[edit on 19-11-2007 by g210b]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   
here you have.. V1.2 (11.11.2006)
rapidshare.com...

you will find links to sources where I have the numbers from within the source code.
Also you will find various factors in the program you can play with and test out.
enjoy


[edit on 19-11-2007 by g210b]

[edit on 19-11-2007 by g210b]



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haroki
Review your source about the amount of concrete again - "400,000 tons for the entire building". More than likely, it's 70,000 tons in the floors for each building = 140,000 tons + 260,000 tons for the basements/slurry walls/foundation, etc = 400,000 tons.


just read it again..
Do you mean this is to read 400'000 cubeyard for BOTH towers? Building ..building!? how was it used in the links..
That would indeed change the thing if this is for both towers.
And yes all that is in the basement doesnt adds to fall time.
hmm...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join