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.

 

RE: Explosive Upward Forces

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
This, in my book, conclusively contradicts that controlled demolitions were responsible for the ejection of material upwards.

I don't have an opinion on whether or not explosives were used, but I do know this. Those claiming that controlled demolitions "had to be responsible" for the upward ejection of material should consider this.

It is very hard for someone to "imagine" the types of forces at work with that much steel and concrete collapsing down.Think of it in terms of kinetic energy.

500,000 Tons moving at free fall acceleration would have put the whole thing moving at nearly 100 MPH at the bottom.

So KE = (1/2) x 453592370 kg x 44.2 M/S ^2 = 443078098863.4 Joules

To put this in context:

That many Joules = approximately 10.6 tons of TNT of downward force

This is basically the exact same energy as a MOAB, which has a shockwave radius powerful enough to take out 9 city blocks, and is the 2nd most powerful non nuclear weapon on the planet. (thought its blast is frequently confused as nuclear)

Some people want to believe conspiracy theories so much that this evidence will be discarded, but the point is, there was more than enough force from the building collapsing to cause everything you see in those pictures

Maybe CEs were still used, but the upward ejection of materials (think what happens when a comet hits) is hardly proof.

The ejection of material, the mushroom cloud... its all consistent with what we see in that video.


Google Video Link


[edit on 16-4-2008 by docpoco]

[edit on 16-4-2008 by docpoco]




posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
You're assuming conventional explosives were used.

There are most definitely ways to bring down a building without exploding things. Thermite doesn't explode like TNT. It just gets extremely hot extremely fast, and melts right through steel like THAT.

That's the flaw in the argument aghainst controlled demolition. People automatically assume "explosion".

Why do demo crews still use explosives in public controlled demos? Well, my guess is most likely these two reasons:

-conventional explosives are cheaper

-it's more entertaining to blow stuff up. You have to realize that building demolitions are now spectator events. It gets them publicity!

If you don't want publicity in any way shape or form, and you have the money to spend, there are more exotic options available to you.

It's very narrow-minded to think that a covert operation to bring down a building in a seeminlgy accidental way would use conventional means to do so. Conventional explosives are WAY too obvious.

Even so, there were also explosions clearly heard in the building, so I think it was a combination of exotic incendiary compounds, and some conventional devices. There is evidence of both, both physical and witness testimony.

So... either way, is it normal for steel buildings to fall straight down ontop of themselves? No.

Not to mention, I rented a video a while back about the construction of the WTC, and in that video.... I can't remember the name of it.... they had this engineer talk about plane collisions, because they were concerned that what happened to the Empire State Building in the 30s had a chance of repeating itsself on modern buildings... and these Trade Center towers were designed like a mesh net, and this guy equated airplane collision with a pencil poking through a screen door netting. The net stays intact, even with multiple punctures. Obviously, the heat of the flames and burning jet fuel was not enough to melt steel into giant pools that smoldered and contunued to be superheated for weeks afterward.... so it was not an open air fire fuelled by a relatively small (compared to the size of the building) amount of jet propellent that brought the buildings down, nor was it the impacts or the damage caused by those impacts.

It was something else... and the answer lies within those molten pools of steel, which have no business being there. Conventional explosives don't do that. Why is anybody still talking about conventional explosives, anyway? Controlled demolition does not equate automatically with "They must use TNT or similar substances."

Hell, they don't even need exlosives at all. They could use lasers, directed energy weapons like HAARP, some sort of super corrosive chemical, and basically loads of other options are available to someone seeking to ddemolish a structure without explosions involved. Explosives are just the cheapest.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by indierockalien
You're assuming conventional explosives were used.




No... I wasn't. I was making a case for the energy of the buildings collapsing being enough to cause a significant debris ejection and following cloud.

Doesn't prove or disprove that explosives were used and doesn't try to. It just contradicts the idea that the debris ejection was in any way proof of controlled explosives.

The force of the buildings coming down had as much energy as the 11 tons of TNT exploding. Which, as was explained earlier, creates a shock wave big enough to level 9 city blocks, according to MOAB statistics.



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   
[edit on 16-4-2008 by docpoco]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
the world trade center exploded.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by docpoco
Doesn't prove or disprove that explosives were used and doesn't try to. It just contradicts the idea that the debris ejection was in any way proof of controlled explosives.



Well something brought the buidlings down and most reports like the NIST computer model state it was not plane impact or fire. Plus the fact that no steel building has ever collasped from fire.

Also there is such a thing as thermire bombs and even a fuel-air / thermite bomb.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by docpoco
It is very hard for someone to "imagine" the types of forces at work with that much steel and concrete collapsing down.Think of it in terms of kinetic energy.


I keep seeing this argument about 'kinetic energy' being able to create the extra 'energy' we see in the collapses. I have a feeling you really don't know what kinetic energy is.

kinetic energy does not mean that an object has any 'force' that is released when that object moves. Anything moving has KE, but friction/resistance is a far stronger force. As soon as that object meets resistance it loses it's kinetic energy. So to state kinetic energy, without considering friction/resistance, was the key to the collapses is incorrect. An object only has KE when it is moving and it won't cause any type of explosive force by itself.


Kinetic energy is a scalar quantity; it does not have a direction. Unlike velocity, acceleration, force, and momentum, the kinetic energy of an object is completely described by magnitude alone. Like work and potential energy, the standard metric unit of measurement for kinetic energy is the Joule. As might be implied by the above equation, 1 Joule is equivalent to 1 kg*(m/s)^2.

Source

You, like many others, have put your faith in what the government and its lackeys have told you, which is not the complete story. The NIST report only tried to explain the collapse initiation, and failed to explain how the building actually globally collapsed. They want you to believe global collapse was inevitable once initiated, thus the physics of resistance was not even considered as it should have been. Once you realise this, and then apply some simple physics, it becomes obvious that global collapse is not inevitable, has never been and will never be.

[edit on 18/4/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Anok,

Hi. Could you please explain these simple physics that prove that it wasn't inevitable?

Thank you.

C.O.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by docpoco
500,000 Tons moving at free fall acceleration


False assumption number one.

How did this 500,000 tons get moving at free fall when columns that buckle still give resistance?

Once you start with faulty assumptions, the rest is just trash. No offense.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Anok,

Hi. Could you please explain these simple physics that prove that it wasn't inevitable?

Thank you.

C.O.


See my post above.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


So you're stating Anok make a faulty assumption?

I'm not sure what you are talking about.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainObvious
 


Since I didn't quote Anok, I have no idea what you are talking about.



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Good OP. But why are people bringing up the no evidence theories proven wrong years ago?

Thermite? Jones made this up 4 years after 9/11, he does not like something about the Iraq war; he is mixed up trying to make up stuff to discredit the administration? I have no idea why he is still trying to back in evidence of thermite. Thermite would leave hard globs of steel/iron, and would have welded things together and got solid before it cut through a column, it goes with gravity, down. The thermite cutters would be seen all over before 9/11 sticking out of the walls with the 3 inch insulation removed to get next to the steel columns. All the cut out wall board would have got the bad guys caught. No thermite, Jones made it up. I have his first paper/letter, he is not very good at this; you should see his first paper. But it has been 6 years, and no evidence of thermite. Watergate was solves in less than 2 years.

Did someone say, Beam weapons? Give the world a break and calculate the beam weapon energy required.

The WTC design impact for an aircraft, lost in the fog, slow-flying. The impact energy was 187 pounds of TNT (kinetic energy). On 9/11 the impacts were 7 and 11 times greater. Significant, much bigger impacts than the design was for. The impact energy damaged core columns, striped insulation and started global fires; took out the fire systems. In other big high rise fires, the fire systems save the building from total collapse, but not from being totaled by fire.

The impacts, and fires caused the collapse of the WTC tower. Fires not fought cause building to fail; common sense to an experienced fireman, or engineer. The chief structural engineer agrees, the impact and fires did it. 9/11 truth has no experts at all, just Jones making up thermite, and other saying the law of physics were broken! Proof they are not experts, because physics explains the whole deal.

If you believe 9/11 truth, skip science, physics, logic, and never listen to the builder of the WTC, and do not read his paper.

Robertson's paper about the WTC, he even takes responsibility, unlike 9/11 truth. PDF version.
www.nae.edu...$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement

Here Robertson talks to Jones; both sides.
www.911podcasts.com...

The OP is correct, the energy of collapse was big. The prime energy source, due to gravity; that factor is why CD's look like the gravity collapse of the WTC.

The OP is correct, the falling towers each had the energy just from gravity of over 100 TONS of TNT. Much more energy than needed to collapse the entire building. The fires had a kicker, they were started by the heat energy of 315 TONS of TNT stored in the JET FUEL. JET FUEL has 10 times the energy, in heat, than TNT! This is why we use gasoline instead of TNT to run our cars. Even chocolate chip cookies have more much more energy than TNT.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Well since i was posting to a comment to Anok. Why are you asking me to see the above post?

I'm confused... what am i supposed to be looking at.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I said to see my post about the faulty assumpton of 500,000 tons of building comming crashing down all at once at feefall as an answer to your question about the resistance. The first assumption is faulty, so therefore, the calculated energy is faulty.

There would have never been 500,000 tons falling n-sync at freefall. Especially columns.

Conclusion. The calulated energy of the OP is faulty.

p.s. I'm having problems typing on ATS. I might be paranoid but it is only ATS. This response alone took me 1/2 hour. What's up with this?



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 

What resistance? A floor on the WTC can only hold 25,000,000 pounds. That comes to the floor, and 11 more. So, if the top fails and comes to rest on one floor, and that top weighs more than 25,000,000 pounds, then the floor fails.

On 9/11 the top fell on the next floor, it did weight more then 25,000,000 pounds and the floor failed instantaneously, and so did the rest, there is no delay.

A basic understanding of physics is needed to understand the WTC failure, an experience with physics, and not some common sense false information passed on by others with no back ground or experience in the real world.

It will take some numbers and a much more complicated explanation than saying it was resistance, when you have not defined the numbers or the resistance. There are a few independent studies to pick from to understand the failure; you must take those and tear them apart using physics and structures. When and where are the papers proving what 99.99 percent of all engineers know about the WTC. Or you can stay with the hearsay work of 0.00087 percent of all engineers who with no evidence support 9/11 truth and the non-conclusion of how the WTC failed.

Please put some numbers to your resistance and show the world how you are the physics expert on 9/11 WTC tower failure. Let the equations flow to show the "resistance" you have found, you can see, that all the world's engineers have missed.

I look forward to your dissertation, or thesis on this.

A lack of knowledge in physics is the only thing making it possible for people to believe the fact less allegations about the WTC falling. By ignoring evidence, 9/11 truth makes up false ideas about the WTC falling. The towers fell as expected by the chief engineer, and not a single 9/11 truth expert has used engineering to prove it wrong, they use hearsay and talk. Not exactly physics. Just talk, and soon the talk will flow freely without evidence or calculations. I doubt I will see a joule or number from 9/11 truth, unlike the OP.

With the chief structural engineer who built the WTC agreeing with me, impact and fires cause the WTC to fall, and the way it fell was expected. Kind of makes all the talk by 9/11 truth believers hearsay based on nothing. Without substantial calculations to prove me and the chief structural engineer wrong, the words that follow based on nothing, are just that; talk.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut

What resistance?


I'd begin by pointing to this:





There's that dang core again, mussin' up "reality." Why can't everyone just think the WTC was built like this, from Bill Eager?:




Or this, from Nova?





posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
'What resistance?'

That statement alone proves that you guys don't understand the physics involved with moving objects. Or you are purposely playing ignorant.

It also proves that you are not doing any independent research and relying on de-bunker sites to do your thinking for you. Or playing ignorant...


Again you have to understand that the governments official version of events purposely failed to explain the global collapse of three buildings beyond what they claim initiated the collapses. Then understand why, because they couldn't without having to explain away physical reality, i.e. the friction/resistance cause by undamaged building structure.

Once you understand the physics involved you will see that the official explanation is incomplete.

BTW the resistance problem is only a part of the physical problems with global collapse, but it only takes one broken law to put things into question. Even more damning than the lack of resistance was the 'angular momentum' problem with the South Towers tilt.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
If the bottom floors beneath the impact zones were undamaged especially the core columns then the building "collapsed" into the path of MOST resistance at very nearly a free fall speed.

The angular momentum of the of the South Tower should have continued into the path of least resistance(open air) with the upper section toppling to the ground in an asymetric manner. It did not it "collapsed straight down" into the path of most resistance.

Why did the communications antenna located in the center of the building drop 30 to 50 feet before the building collapse initiated.

Most of the mass of the building appeared to explode outward as it collapsed??

Why did the core collapse especially in the (undamaged) lower floors??

Why was so much of the buildings pulverized into unrecognizable debris?

The questions are endless with 9/11 and they have not been answered.

We' re waiting...

PS Calling me names is not an answer.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
What resistance?


The trusses pulled the columns inward, right? I'm talking about the resistance of the buckled columns that would still be present to deter this freefalling mass of the top. I'm not saying it would stop it. Just deter it enough that the OP's assumption of a falling mass at freefall is in error.


A floor on the WTC can only hold 25,000,000 pounds. That comes to the floor, and 11 more. So, if the top fails and comes to rest on one floor, and that top weighs more than 25,000,000 pounds, then the floor fails.


First, why do people want to think that the top section just became severed all of a sudden and drops? This would NEVER happen. Unless you are saying the columns were severed with explosives?

If the columns buckled inward, THERE WOULD STILL BE RESISATANCE and the top WOULD NOT fall at freefall speed and energy. Period.


On 9/11 the top fell on the next floor, it did weight more then 25,000,000 pounds and the floor failed instantaneously, and so did the rest, there is no delay.


How did this top get compressed (all mass as you guys are trying to assume) to instantaneously drop on one floor? The top would have came down with ONE floor hitting the next floor and then the next upper floor hitting then the next. With 12.5 feet of air in between the floors. The floors above the upper failing floor DID NOT get severed and come crashing down along with the failing floor in one instance.


A basic understanding of physics is needed to understand the WTC failure, an experience with physics, and not some common sense false information passed on by others with no back ground or experience in the real world.


I just have to laugh at YOUR lack of understanding of the physics involved.

BTW, care to tell what YOUR experience and background in physics is?

I'll tell you mine. I've been a practicing Civil Engineer for the last 12 years. With the last 5 being STRUCTURAL.


It will take some numbers and a much more complicated explanation than saying it was resistance, when you have not defined the numbers or the resistance.


But, yet you people take NIST at it's word? Or Bazant, Eager etc.? When they say that magically the top sections mass just so happened to fall on a single floor all at once.



Please put some numbers to your resistance and show the world how you are the physics expert on 9/11 WTC tower failure. Let the equations flow to show the "resistance" you have found, you can see, that all the world's engineers have missed.


First, NONE of the worlds engineers have seen the construction documentation to do their calculations. Even your gurus Eager, Bazant et al. So, how do we know that they didn't just pull it out of their own asses? We don't.


A lack of knowledge in physics is the only thing making it possible for people to believe the fact less allegations about the WTC falling.


Yes, I know. Tell me about it. How could anyone trust Bazant, Eager, NIST etc.? Especially when you lack a knowledge in physics.


The towers fell as expected by the chief engineer,


WHAT the hell are you talking about? Blowing it out your ass again? Skilling (the chief engineer) is on record saying that it wouldn't.


and not a single 9/11 truth expert has used engineering to prove it wrong, they use hearsay and talk. Not exactly physics. Just talk, and soon the talk will flow freely without evidence or calculations. I doubt I will see a joule or number from 9/11 truth, unlike the OP.


Want to see some numbers? Get me the construction documents. Plans and specs.

I look forward to you comming through with my request.


With the chief structural engineer who built the WTC agreeing with me, impact and fires cause the WTC to fall, and the way it fell was expected.


John Skilling was/is the chief structural engineer. NOT Leslie Robinson. Skilling is dead, that is why we don't hear from him. But, we DID hear from him back in 1993.


"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."


community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...


Kind of makes all the talk by 9/11 truth believers hearsay based on nothing. Without substantial calculations to prove me and the chief structural engineer wrong, the words that follow based on nothing, are just that; talk.


Well, since you didn't even know who the chief structural engineer was, I'd assume you could be in error on a few other things.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join