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.

 

Alternative 9/11 Theories

page: 20
2
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


I didn't say they would be. Re-read what I said. Also by significantly longer than an HE pressure wave I'm still thinking only a second or two max.

Mainly, for me, personally, because I don't believe there was any "pancaking," for a lot of other reasons. Difference of opinions I guess.

By looking at the Ground Zero photos.
So you're suggesting more mass "stuck around" until towards the end of the collapses, right? Before making its way out of the footprints to its final resting place.
A couple problems that I have with this are that the debris would not be able to go as far horizontally if it were launched from a floor closer to the ground (unless it were going faster, proportionately, to make up for it, which is more energy taken from the total potential energy of the falling mass), and this theory doesn't really match up with videos I watch that show debris start coming out steadily once the floor-by-floor sequence begins.

And to get that energy applied in that direction from a "bounce," which is technically a spring mechanism (pressure applied to the steel dynamically, then an equilibrium is reached, then the steel "pushes" back), it has to fall or etc. onto the other object from that angle.


1- We agree. This could work. But again I'll just add that air is forced out and could provide energy without the need of Heating by a thermal.... whatever.

2- I was lazy when i typed "pancaking". What I meant to say that as the accumulated debris fell, and acted as a united collapse front that could push out the air.

3- I see a roughly pyramid shape, as I would expect. Your points have merit, but I see no way to resolve "when".

4- The parts that were far from the collapse pile presumably wouldn't have added anything to the collapse energy. Agree?

5- yep, hard to justify what I'm saying. Just saying that it's more likely than explosives doing it since explosives couldn't go unnoticed. yes, I know YOU'RE not saying that. Just adding that part for noobs.




posted on May, 17 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
2- I was lazy when i typed "pancaking". What I meant to say that as the accumulated debris fell, and acted as a united collapse front that could push out the air.


By "united," you mean airtight? Like a big, flat, air-tight surface that always pushes everything out from under it? Or else the air would go through the "cracks" and just rise up or wherever the least "resistance" would be provided first, always.


4- The parts that were far from the collapse pile presumably wouldn't have added anything to the collapse energy. Agree?


They would not have had as much time to contribute energy, before being ejected with some horizontal force. Then it keeps sailing sideways until it hits the ground. And the initial event that sends it out with such energy, takes that energy from the total PE theoretically causing the collapse, in gravity-based models.



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
No wonder that with this lack of reasoning they have a hard time accepting proof of what happened that day.


Again you have to resort to insults becasue you cannot show actual evdience of what happened that day.

Do i have to keep reposting all of the evidnece that you DO NOT HAVE to support the official story?


[edit on 17-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I really do think that the govement did attack the wtc. Se before this we where in a time of power and trying to over tack bush. They did this to get us under control. That's why they did it then they came and got us back under control and now where in a pointless war with a bunch of other people just because of oi;l and not the attack they did.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Do I have to keep reposting that you will never accept any evidence, because no one took you by the hand to show each crash scene to you?



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Do I have to keep reposting that you will never accept any evidence, because no one took you by the hand to show each crash scene to you?


Too bad on one took you by the hand and showed you that no one has posted any actual evidence to support the official story.

Stop living in a fantasy world and face reallity.



new topics

top topics
 
2
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join