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.

 

WTC7, debris from WTC1

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
This video I believe shows the debris that hit WTC7, from the North Tower:

www.liveleak.com...

I believe WTC7 stood ~355ft. from WTC1.

My question is, how can debris that is obviously being affected by gravity gain momentum to travel this distance outwards from WTC1?

Whoever made this video uses the words "something sails out of the collapsing North Tower"... I disagree with the wording used, primarily due to the mass this debris would have. By saying it "sails" out it gives the impression of being affected by "wind". Clearly this is not the case! If it was light enough to be affected by wind, it probably would have caused no damage to WTC7.

So, what force was exerted upon this heavy debris causing it to travel more than 355ft. in a horizontal direction?




posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Similarly, what sent a 22-ton piece of debris 600 feet laterally onto the Winter Garden?

You can break down the momentum of all of these pieces of debris into two components: a vertical component, and a horizontal component. You do this using vectors and it's how scientists and engineers simplify forces/etc. that act at odd angles.

The motion in the vertical direction can all be accounted for by gravity. The motion in the horizontal direction is totally unaccounted for. Something would literally have to knock the debris out of the building with tremendous force for there to be any significant amount of momentum to be had in this direction. Consider it this way: if a column just buckled and fell away, it would fall right along the very outside of the building's edge, falling down past windows, etc. Instead, these very large pieces of debris were hurled all the way out of the WTC complex and across neighboring streets into buildings hundreds of feet away.


What's even more curious (and becomes damning) about this is that it happened to a majority of the entire mass in both towers. Most of the mass from both towers landed OUTSIDE of the building footprints, and this can be proved with photos of Ground Zero from immediately after. Everything was NOT in a big stack at the bottom as if everything in each tower just fell straight down. Instead, about 80% of the mass from either building was strewn out everywhere else. And this happened as the buildings were collapsing, by means of debris being ejected in pretty much all directions. Of course it averages out to around 80% of the total mass of each floor, being sent straight out, rather than falling straight down, ultimately. This is all mass that could not possibly contribute to a progressive collapse.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I was rather flabbergasted to read people claiming damage was done on sides no one could see. Apparently, they have never looked a a map showing what was surrounding WTC 7 on three sides facing away from the rest of the WTC complex.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


There is no way of knowing the majority of debris landed outside either tower. Considering there were something like 6 sublevels below ground level receiving debris before it started piling up at the ground level. The bases of both towers measured approximately 204' x 204'.

Then all that outside debris would have to be gathered and piled up, and compared in size to the amount both above and far below the ground level of both towers. Someone would have to make certain the gathered debris was not part of any other buildings of the WTC.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
There is no way of knowing the majority of debris landed outside either tower. Considering there were something like 6 sublevels below ground level receiving debris before it started piling up at the ground level.


I have seen extensive photography of the excavations of those basement levels during clean-up. If you would like, you can look them up yourself, and then show me where all the floors and etc. from the above-ground floors are. I haven't seen them.

Included among things I have seen in the basement levels:






That alone should tell you lots about what didn't go into the basements: an apparently largely-intact core structure extending to the foundation. Remember the bottom-most sections of perimeter wall that were also left standing? They were fastened to the ground as well, and weren't disturbed during the collapses.






And lots and lots of pulverized concrete and stones from aggregate filled the basement levels:






So to reiterate my point, almost all of the above-ground steel was ejected outside of the buildings' footprints:








Can you show me images of any significant amount of structural steel from above-ground (ie perimeter columns and dissociated core column sections, trusses or floor pans) being excavated from underground in any photos?

Here's a gallery with tons of images from clean-up, to start you off: www.studyof911.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


If all you go by is photographs, how is that thorough investigation? I do not know any qualified investigators merely skimming the surface to arrive at the most qualified accurate and truthful conclusion.

When people are looking at excavations, they are not seeing one big excavation pile without clean-up. They are seeing piles cleaned up and more piles being made until reaching the bottom.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The motion in the vertical direction can all be accounted for by gravity.


You sound like you never tried to play with a house made of playing cards.
Try it a couple of times and see where the "fragments" land.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


That is an irrelevant analogy when compared to how the twin towers were actually constructed. When a house of cards is built, it is not built on a foundation with 6 sub-levels, is it?



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


That is an irrelevant analogy when compared to how the twin towers were actually constructed. When a house of cards is built, it is not built on a foundation with 6 sub-levels, is it?


It's built on a solid table. If the question is whether parts will get ejected when the structure get broken down and collapsing onto self, the answer is obviosuly yes. You didn't expect it to become neatly packed into a perfect cube of material, did you?



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bsbray11
The motion in the vertical direction can all be accounted for by gravity.


You sound like you never tried to play with a house made of playing cards.
Try it a couple of times and see where the "fragments" land.


Are you implying that the horizontal movement of the very heavy debris can be accounted for due to air?


A playing card is very different to a large chunk of building. The weight of the playing card, and it's shape account for the fluttering around movement when you are building a house of cards and mess up.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Start here and put in your own numbers:

In order to allow time for lateral motion, the exterior column(s) that hit WFC 3 were most probably from the upper half of WTC 1. A fall from 1,000 feet to 240 feet would take SQR(2*h/g) = around 6.9 seconds where h = 760 feet and g = 32.17 ft/s^2. In the horizontal plane, a uniform acceleration of 20 m/s^2 for the first second followed by negligible deceleration due to drag for the remaining 5.9 seconds would provide 10 + (5.9 * 20) = 128 metres = 420 feet displacement. At 1,000 feet the WTC 1 perimeter columns, per story, were comprised of:

two flanges of 1/2 x 13.5 x 144 inches each, totalling 1,944 ins^3
one outer web of 1/4 x 13 x 144 inches = 468 ins^3
one inner web of 1/4 x 15.75 x 92 inches = 362 ins^3
one spandrel plate of 3/8 x 40 x 52 inches = 780 ins^3

...totalling 3,554 ins^3 per floor or 10,662 ins^3 = 6.17 ft^3 for a three-floor section which at 490 lb/ft^3 is 3,023 lb (84 pounds per lineal foot) or 1,371 kg. (There is some uncertainty as to the flange thickness; it was known to be only 1/4" at the very highest floors.) The force require to produce an acceleration of 20 m/s^2 in an inertia mass of 1,371 kg is 20 * 1371 = 27,420 N = 6,165 lbf.

The cross-section presented to a wind, per floor, would be 40 x 52 = 2,080 ins^2 for the spandrel plate and 15.75 x 92 = 1,449 ins^2 for the inner web, totalling 3,529 ins^2 per floor or 10,587 ins^2 = 6.83 m^2 for a three-story section of exterior column. (So the required pressure is well under 1 psi.) From the drag equation of

d = Cd * A * r * 0.5 * v^2

we obtain

v = SQR(2 * d / (Cd * A * r))

where r = density of air ~ 1.2 kg/m^3 and assuming a relatively high drag coefficient Cd of 4 / pi ~ 1.27 for a flat plate and d = the previously calculated force of 27,420 N and A = 6.83 m^2 as calculated above. This places the required wind at 72.6 m/s = 162 mph for one second duration. Actual windspeed on the day was up to 10 mph on the ground and up to 20 mph at higher altitude.

Suppose we imagine the collapse initiating at 1,200 feet, and proceeding as per the "pancaking" theory to 1,000 feet. After freely falling 200 feet, the terminal velocity would be SQR(2 * 200 * 32.17 ft/s^2) = 113.4 fps = 77.3 mph. In this theory, there is a small delay due to resistance of the intact building below, but the falling upper section smashes its way through each floor in about 0.1 seconds at the 1,000 feet level. The volume of air per floor is approximately 12 * 200 * 200 feet = 480,000 ft^3. Some will go down, but if the total was forced out through a perimeter of 800 feet by an average height of 6 feet which is an exiting area of 4,800 ft^2, it would (continuing outward) extend for some 100 feet at the end of the 0.1 seconds which is a velocity of 1,000 fps or 682 mph.

Let's set the exiting gases velocity at just 700 fps = 213 m/s, in which case the force acting on the exterior column for 0.1 seconds is given by:

d = Cd * A * r * 0.5 * v^2

= 1.27 * 6.83 * 1.2 * 0.5 * 213^2 ~ 236,000 N

to produce an acceleration of F / m = 236,000 N / 1,371 kg = 172 m/s^2. After 0.1 seconds the velocity of the steel is 17.2 m/s = 38.5 mph, and the horizontal displacement is 0.86 metres. Following another 6.8 seconds at 17.2 m/s the total distance travelled horizontally is 0.86 plus 6.8 * 17.2 ~ 118 metres = 387 feet. The columns have to shear off quickly enough, and the pancaking theory has the problem that the gravitational potential appears to be too low for all the energy sinks, but even this scenario does not appear to rule out the idea that debris could end up a few hundred feet away.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
Nice work


Factor in the radial component of direct mechanical force applied to the outer walls (spreading) and some impressive distances become less unreasonable.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


Where are the material components of a building figured into your equation? Yes, it does make a significant difference, when attempting to arrive at the most accurate probablity, particularly the one you are attempting to calculate.

WTC 7 could only be hit by flying debris in two locations - on the roof and on the wall facing the complex.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


Did you overlook the fact you took what you did off another website forum, and neglected to give due credit to that author in that forum? Are you this poster Arkan_Wolfshade posting to forums.randi.org?

forums.randi.org...

Not exactly what I would call a website dedicated to postings by objective professional scientists. Instead, a blog with people playing numbers games, which become meaningless for actual value.

It is called the statistics game. People play that game by leaving out any pertinent negative data, which would interfere with the more positive pictured desiring to be be presented aka disinformation.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
If all you go by is photographs, how is that thorough investigation?


And what are you offering? All you can do is argue with me.

I know what I'm seeing in those pictures and it isn't floors and floors worth of columns and other steel. The core structure was still mostly intact, and if you know what kind of grid that is, and how much of the towers' footprints it took up, you'd understand how little room there would be left for debris to fall into at the base. If you don't then I don't care, I won't keep responding to you saying "we can't know." You can see in the images that the core structures were still largely there under the lobby. It's not fake a image, is it? Who would fake that?


Originally posted by buddhasystem
You sound like you never tried to play with a house made of playing cards.
Try it a couple of times and see where the "fragments" land.


Do you know what a moment of inertia is? Ever noticed how a card will tend to fall more slowly when it's falling perfectly flat compared to when its falling at a 90 degree angle from the floor? A card has a teeny moment of inertia and changes in friction/drag (or whatever else you'd like to call it) has a more dramatic effect in where it's falling than it would for a 22-ton mass of steel. You can even see the chunks of debris flying away from the buildings in arcs that are most horizontal when first coming out of the buildings (and already completely detached).



The steeper angle towards the base means that air is just providing friction that is slowing the columns, but the wind isn't really blowing the columns around like the way cards would fall through the air, is it? In other words, all of the energy for the horizontal motion is up-front, and most present when first coming away from the building.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


There is nothing to offer. There should be no argument due to the obvious. To make a general unproved statement, of there was more debris outside the footprints than in, is completely inaccurate. Considering all anyone is using to judge by is above ground still shots. They have no time stamp and dating, and no actual gathering all the outside debris. Plus, consideration of sublevel excavations, to more accurately physically measure before it was all hauled off, must be factored in to form a relatively accurate equation.

To say it looks (appears to be) from photos, as if there is more debris outside than inside the buildings' footprints, would be be far more accurate. It would not necessarily be true, but it would be relatively more accurate.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
Let's set the exiting gases velocity at just 700 fps = 213 m/s, in which case the force acting on the exterior column for 0.1 seconds is given by:


With your calculations you assume that each entire floor came down so evenly (as in, all connections making up that floor failing simultaneously) that it maintained this greatly compressed air under it, without pressure escaping through large cracks and holes and etc. from the destroyed floors and debris coming down from above. You basically assumed a very simple and naive version of pancake theory.

This air flow that you're imagining would have an effect on the dust being blown out, wouldn't it? If you watch collapse videos, you'll see that the air is sucked down and into the collapse, as if the core is being sucked down, not outwards in all directions as each floor neatly pancakes onto the next, which did NOT happen. Regardless of what you think causes it, you can at least see this much in videos, and it contradicts what your math is set up to imply.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
There is nothing to offer. There should be no argument due to the obvious. To make a general unproved statement, of there was more debris outside the footprints than in, is completely inaccurate.


The piles of debris sitting in the lobbies barely extending beyond the lobbies (tree-columns) at their highest, and that was actually just part of WTC1's still intact core structure at the lobby level and ABOVE ground. The towers were once 110 stories tall. There is a LOT of steel that is no longer in the footprints, but is now all over the complex. I think THAT is an obvious statement. This is a ridiculous thing to argue about.


Considering all anyone is using to judge by is above ground still shots. They have no time stamp and dating, and no actual gathering all the outside debris.


I wonder if you're familiar with the structure of the WTC tower. Do you know how much area of each floor the core structure took up, or that it took up more towards the basements? Did you actually study any of those photographs, or are you still repulsed by them?



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Do you see any steel from the inside blowing out all over Manhattan and the Hudson River? No one can, because it did not do that. All that came straight down into the footprint sublevels. Until it made piles above ground, and spread out, when not being contained by foundation walls of the sub-levels.

What people saw flying out and off the buildings were some of the primary perimeter steel support frames and the steel facade. That was not the majority of steel or anything else making up both buildings, including elevators, stairs,and escalators.

That dust cloud was some of the pulverized sheetrock and concrete being blown to the outside, due to decompression, with all that weight, mass and velocity from the top dropping straight down. The rest landed straight down into the footprints in the sub-levels. The debris, in the footprints above ground, became piles growing heavier, larger and then spreading outside the footprint. If retainer walls were up, that debris dropping straight down would have stayed in the retainer walls surrounding the footprints, and would not have spread outside the footprints.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
there are many imporant other points that have to be explained.

main questions there:

1. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain (free fall speed "collapse")
2. The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers
3. The rail lines, rail cars and tunnels had only light damage
4. The WTC mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends
5. The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on our comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition
6. The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up, unlike WTC7
7. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth
8. File cabinet with folder dividers survive.
9. Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side burning cars.
10. Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, plus a cylindrical arc into Bankers Trust and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust
11. All planes but top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes after WTC 1 had been destroyed
12. Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways during the destruction of the Twin Towers
13. The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub.
14. Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged or destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix, and no others.
15. The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared
16. The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the mass, unlike that of WTC7
17. Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball and electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, the sound of explosions.
18. The possibility that a technology exists. Since invention of the microwave for cooking in 1945 and laser beam in 1955*, commercial and military development of beam technology has proceeded apace, so use of high-energy beams are likely.


www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join