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 science of why it had to be controlled demolition, in laymen's terms

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 


a body in motion doesnt always stay in motion

ok fine physics in theory with incomplete data is one thing. go learn about explosives and then reexamine the evidence.
here i even did some of the math for you.




posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Since I've repeated several times that there is video covering the entire period from before UA 175 hit WTC 2 until it collapsed, why would you insist there is not?

Reasonable people want to know.


If you know where it is, please provide it. And does it clearly show the top of the South Tower all that time, or is smoke from the North Tower shielding the view of 23 minutes of South Tower top 90 something floors leaning? I do know the rift took place at least 3 floors above the impact area.

This author does not say how long the lean took place, but does indeed confirm a lean was existing prior to collapse. When I measured photos of that lean, as others have done, there was no signs of immediate collapse at the time.

911review.com...

"There are several problems with Eagar's argument.

The core of each tower was 87 by 133 feet wide. The South Tower's top started to lean in the direction of its shorter dimension, so it only had to lean about 44 feet, on average, before its center of gravity cleared the core structure. Photographs show that the top did indeed lean that much before it was engulfed in the exploding cloud of rubble.

The fact that the South Tower's top was already rotating meant that it should have continued to rotate and rotate faster, as any toppling object does. Yet instead of continuing to topple, it started to righted itself as it began to explode.

Regardless of whether the top of either tower was tipping, there is no explanation for the destruction of the cores, which would have survived the pancaking of the floor diaphragms.

Eagar's argument does not begin to explain the explosiveness of the collapses."

Now, you have a responsibility to prove I was presenting a definitive statement of at least 15 minutes, as opposed to a possibility/potential stating it was leaning at least 15 minutes. As I recall, I was giving the possibility of at least 15 minutes. I did so per witness testimony that the top section collapsed (leaned) and metal bending at 9:36 am, while building collapse did not occure until 9:59 am. Possibility/potential is not the same as definitive statement. The words "If that is/was the case...." are always a statement of potential not fact. The word "if" is the first clue that a probability/possibility is going to be stated rather than fact.

As I recall, the lean was on the opposite side of impact, which would be impossbile if an object took out support on the impact side. The impact side should have had the building falling toward the impacted area when support was lost. The next obvious suspicious factor was that lean did not occur on the same floor as the impact, but, instead was at least 3 stories above the impact.

On point two of the author's statements, it is indicative someone did not charge the top, as it should have been done in successful controlled demolitions. The only way the top could have tried to right itself, is if the opposite and very bent supporting cores were cut, and the lean had not moved passed a point of no return. Thus allowing the building to shift downward rather than continuing outward, particularly when the building under it was so obviously imploding.

That lean is testimony to exactly how strong those supporting core beams actually were.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
See the last perimeter columns outlining the footprints of each fallen tower? If you remember how much mass USED to be sitting on top of those footprints, then it should be immediately obvious that most of that mass is now GONE from there. It was thrown out in all directions as the towers fell, all over the complex and beyond. That is all I am/was pointing out.


Unfortunately for your argument, exterior and internal debris (when a building is dropping and depending on type of debris i.e. concrete dust) would be expected to be outside a building's footprint, when implosion is taking place and done. As would anything attached to outside of a building.

Implosion always causes decompression and expels at least some of what is inside, including all air. When air becomes compressed by decompression, it has to go somewhere, which would normally be to the outside, directly due to decompression by weight,mass, and velocity.

Air pressure builds up during decompression of enclosing walls (or floors and ceilings doing the decompression). As air is being compressed, it can build enormous kinetic engergy,which means it is quite capable of taking pulverized objects, lighter than the force if the air's kinetic engery, with it to the outside, and a lot of it in 110 stories of concrete, steel, and sheetrock buildings.

So that you understand what is meant by a building's footprint. The footprint is the area contained/surrounded by exterior walls. Exterior walls are not part of the footprint nor are any sub-level exterior foundation walls. The twin towers had something like 6 to 7 sub-level floors qualifying as their footprints.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

You don't need NIST nor anyone else to see that the penthouses collapsed before the rest of the structure. Obviously, interior beams supporting those penthouses gave way first. What is so confusing about that?


Since the penthouses are at the very top, that would be expected they start to drop first during any implosion. Unfortunately, for your argument, they dropped symmetrically without supports being cut symmetrically. That can easily be seen in videos, including the one I presented to this forum, from the sagging roofline in the center of WTC 7.

Symmetrical dropping of buildings, in their footprints, has never happen on its own in any building, and has never been recorded in history of buildings to have happened, without use of controlled demolitions. If you have valid substantiation to the contrary, by all means, please do present it.

The answer to why a building will not fall straight down without support being symmetrically cut at the same (or withing spilit second timing of all strategic supports) should be obvious - if one knows even the basic laws of classical/natural laws of physics.

There are such easy experiments to perform at home or read about, regarding the above. Why aren't people trying or reading about them?

This one is very easy. Stand up 4 corner supports of evenly cut metal or plastic tubes (put the ground ends in something like a child's hollowed out circle or square plastic block toys to give support if you wish) on their ends. Place a stiff covering over the top of the tubes. Now test how, when and how many supports have to be removed, for the top covering to fall straight down without toppling instead. Support loss has never brought buildings straight down without being symmetrically removed. That is a fact not supposition. The laws of physics will not allow it to happen.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

You haven't answered my question yet. I repeat:

"There are numerous videos, some just the raw, unedited videos, of WTC 2 from before it was hit by Arab-hijacked UA 175 until it collapsed. None of them show the top portion of WTC 2 leaning a full 23 degrees for a full 15 minutes before global collapse. You do agree with that statement of fact, don't you?"

Therefore, those videos would confirm or refute your claim. Please support your claim by providing us with one of those videos or concede that you are wrong.


Thank you.

Cheers.

Since you are so certain they exist, and I cite these words not belonging to me, "There are numerous videos, some just the raw, unedited videos, of WTC 2 from before it was hit by Arab-hijacked UA 175 until it collapsed....." then, by all means, please present them or drop if you cannot. I have already stated I have been unable to locate any. You are making a definitive statement they exist.

Now it becomes your responsibility to prove they exist. I say they do not because I cannot locate them. Therefore, they do not exist for me. You have stated they exist for you so please present what exists for you.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by OrionStars]

[edit on 19-12-2007 by OrionStars]

[edit on 19-12-2007 by OrionStars]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Yes, exterior panels, the same ones seen on the video I've posted here numerous times showing it took around 14 seconds for WTC 2 to collapse.


Why are people gauging the fall of exterior parts hitting the ground, to exact a time the building finally stopped dropping, not counting the dust settling? It might give an approximate time, depending upon the location of an exterior panel start of fall from a building. But it will not give an exact time as to when the building stopped dropping, not counting the dust settling. For instance, at what time did the spire on the North Tower hit the ground? Did it hit the ground before any exterior wall parts did? Yes, it does make a difference in timing.

Outside debris had air resistance caused by decompression of the building,and the buildings did not have that air resistance due to decompression. There would have been a great deal of kinetic energy in the decompressed air to cause resistence to any object trying to pass through it.

Outside a vacuum, weight and mass do matter.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by OrionStars]



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solarskye
If the 9/11 tragedy was proven and the government did it intentionally how would we go about justice? I feel the government will never let this happen. There's strawman versions for both sides. If it was proven that it was terrorist would it change the minds of the ones who believe it was intentionally? I very much doubt it myself. All I'm trying to say is that it's to late. Time has passed and the 9/11 commission has spoken. I feel in my own opinion that all we can do now is speculate and discuss the issues of 9/11. Nothing else can be done.


You are certainly entitled to that opinion. However, mine is this. If people take an attitude nothing can be done, they have completed a self-fulfilling prophecy. I, for one, am not inclined to allow people to get by with murder, particularly murder the magnitude of 9/11. I do not care what their names or their financial status is. One law for all devoid of double standards. The perpetrators deserve to be exposed and punished for their heinous deeds.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Saying WTC 7 collapsed symmetrically into it's own footprint does not make it true. As someone pointed out by the Penthouse, it certainly did not fall symmetrically. And never before in history have buildings been subjected to this kind of damage.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
And I don't have time to explain it all, again......

but - here's the deal - it's a mesh structure. It's like taking a tube of chicken wire and trying to make it collapse. The only way it will collapse is in on itself. It won't crumble off to the side (not without some really serious effort on your part), it won't partially cave in... the whole thing comes down if one part comes down - but it takes a lot of effort to bring that one part down..... and everything tries its damnedest to stick together - so it will crumble in its own footprint.


Have you compared chicken wire construction to the internal and external construction of the WTC? If not, how can you, in the face of substantiation presented to this forum to the contrary, continue making such definitive, misleading statements? Again, you are attempting to trivialize the entire construction of the WTC. So does the "official" report. So does NIST in various parts of that report. People, who have studied that structure without agenda to cover-up facts, would be remiss in allowing you to continue relating disinformation.

I loath highrise buildings. From recorded history of highrises, they have always been death traps for obvious reasons, i.e. evacuation on a work day only being one of them. However, when I see distortions, regarding the WTC buildings, I do not allow my loathing of highrises to prevent me from correcting mis-and disinformation.



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


wow so based on this, would you agree or disagree that the "squibs" may not have been caused by HE charges?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aim64C
but it takes a lot of effort to bring that one part down..... and everything tries its damnedest to stick together - so it will crumble in its own footprint.


The WTC Towers didn't fall into their footprints. Most of their masses was sent flying outwards around and outside of the complex. Watch videos and you'll see things flying out in arcs in about all directions. Look at pictures of Ground Zero from before the clean-up started and you'll see how messy the entire area was.


Unless you were able to measure what went outside vs, what ended up in the footpirnt, you have no way of knowing that for certain, do you?



posted on Dec, 19 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Unless you were able to measure what went outside vs, what ended up in the footpirnt, you have no way of knowing that for certain, do you?


why not? there are several posters here who will contend that not only was ALL of the concrete reduced to a few microns in size, but that MOST of the core columns were also "dustified" and yet when i look at pictures it sure seems that theres a lot of steel there, and a decent stack appears to be bigger than what was used in the perimeter walls.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 


a body in motion doesnt always stay in motion


Exactly, that is roughly what should have happened to the twin towers. They should have not overcome the resistance from the building below and toppled over. Thats a fine example, cheers.

Saying all that, this is still presuming that they would start to collapse at all. So far i have not seen an adequate reason why the collapse should even initiate. For them to start to collapse the way they did shoould mean that all of the colums failed simultaneously. Not only that, but all of the columns failed simultaneously and completely, losing 100% of their strength.

The five or so floors that were clearly damaged by the impact may have failed, but that still does not explain how the rest of the building below failed to stop the falling section from slowing down. Moreover it is near impossible that all the inner core columns, and outer colums, would fail completely, and simultaneously.

The only case where we know that that happens for sure is in controlled demolition. That seems to be where all the evidence is pointing.



ok fine physics in theory with incomplete data is one thing. go learn about explosives and then reexamine the evidence.
here i even did some of the math for you.


Those calculations about explosives look fine, but I was hoping for calculations about the actual collapse, not what could have caused it. I say that because we dont know exactly what they could have used to bring the towers down, but we do know exactly how the towers fell from video testimony.

[edit on 23-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by snoopy
 


WTC 7 had its center supports dropped symmetrically and quite evenly. That can easily be seen in videos along the roofline. The center starts to sag. The four walls were then pulled into the inside of the building. I saw it as a sloppy job, but it worked the way it was supposed to.

Which primary support beams have cutter charge demolotions planted inside them, determines how buildings are going to fall by controlled demolition implosion. WTC 7 could have been made to look to fall exactly the same way as WTC 1 and 2 fell. But it was not made to look that way. I have no idea if it was intentional or just done that way for cost effectiveness. The same effect was achieved. Though they ended up shifiting what they saved in time and cost planting demolitions to expending for clean-up instead.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

Originally posted by OrionStars
Unless you were able to measure what went outside vs, what ended up in the footpirnt, you have no way of knowing that for certain, do you?


why not? there are several posters here who will contend that not only was ALL of the concrete reduced to a few microns in size, but that MOST of the core columns were also "dustified" and yet when i look at pictures it sure seems that theres a lot of steel there, and a decent stack appears to be bigger than what was used in the perimeter walls.



I have no idea how your response directly related to what I wrote.

Who is contending steel "dustifies"? That would imply rust flaking off steel.

What concrete there was in the WTC was pulverized to dust, except for that not affected by the towers falling into their own footprints. The dust debris also contained pulverized sheetrock/drywall. Rather than using heavier concrete for wall covering base, they used several plies of sheetrock/drywall as a fire retardant along with asbestos. Asbestos was not banned when the WTC was built.

There was a great deal of intact intact steel there, particularly the center core support sections at 54"x22"x5".

Everything I have covered was on the inside. That certainly does not determine whether or not more debris fell on the outside, rather than dropping into the buildings own footprint. To determine that, the pile(s) of debris on the outside would have to be gathered and measured, and then compared to the pile in the buildings' footprints. All the way down to the lowest sub-level. As I recall, the towers had 6 to 7 sub-levels, which held parking space for those leasing and working in the WTC buildings and visitors. Parking has long been at a premium in NYC.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
reply to post by OrionStars
 


wow so based on this, would you agree or disagree that the "squibs" may not have been caused by HE charges?



Based on what? I have no idea on what I am supposed to base a response.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by snoopy
Saying WTC 7 collapsed symmetrically into it's own footprint does not make it true. As someone pointed out by the Penthouse, it certainly did not fall symmetrically. And never before in history have buildings been subjected to this kind of damage.


WTC 7 dropping cannot be substantially compared to WTC 1 and 2. WTC 7 fell differently but achieved the same effect of falling into its own footprint. It just did it differently.

The primary center (center of gravity of a building) gravitational load supports have to be cut symmetrically, either at the same time or in split second rapid succession. Controlled demolition implosions, in the case of WTC 7, depended on pulling all exterior walls of buildings into the inside of buildings. That is what did happen for WTC 7.

The center of the roofline can be seen sagging. Then all four walls start being pulled in to the inside of the building.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I will still never understand how people can warp their idea of physics so much as to believe that the towers fell in on themself from the top down *shrug*

Reality hurts.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Damocles
wow so based on this, would you agree or disagree that the "squibs" may not have been caused by HE charges?


Based on what? I have no idea on what I am supposed to base a response.


well, this, as was implied by the "reply to" link...


Originally posted by OrionStars
Implosion always causes decompression and expels at least some of what is inside, including all air. When air becomes compressed by decompression, it has to go somewhere, which would normally be to the outside, directly due to decompression by weight,mass, and velocity.

Air pressure builds up during decompression of enclosing walls (or floors and ceilings doing the decompression). As air is being compressed, it can build enormous kinetic engergy,which means it is quite capable of taking pulverized objects, lighter than the force if the air's kinetic engery, with it to the outside, and a lot of it in 110 stories of concrete, steel, and sheetrock buildings.


youre saying that compressed air has a lot of force yeah?

so, based on what you wrote, would you admit its possible that the "squibs" MAY NOT have been explosives?



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:27 AM
link   
quote]Originally posted by Damocles

well, this, as was implied by the "reply to" link....

There was nothing explicit or implied, because until this post, nothing I had written had been cited in your other post. Previously, I had nothing cited, of what I had written, on which to base a proper response to your question.




youre saying that compressed air has a lot of force yeah?


Your question begs this question. Have you ever stood in front of an air compressor and been hit with a blast of compressed air? If so, please tell us if you think it lacked pressure.




so, based on what you wrote, would you admit its possible that the "squibs" MAY NOT have been explosives?


Now that I saw my specific cited reference, I can properly answer the question. Why are you asking me about "squibs" I did not mention. Exactly which squibs would those be?



[edit on 24-12-2007 by OrionStars]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join