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.

 

911 - World Trade fell at free fall speed!!

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   




posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Hey there, Neon

great post, star & flag!!

The more that I hear this kind of evidence, the more I can't believe that many people simply don't believe it.

I wish the non believers would wake up and realize that the government screwed them...again.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Here is a nice video that clearly shows the explosions on floors well below the collapse, as it was happening....also some other stuff thrown in too. Enjoy!


www.youtube.com...





[edit on 3-7-2008 by no name needed]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You're quite right - seems I didn't look at my notes and also mixed units as well.

As for the height used in the calcs, I used the height of the zone where collapse started (the impacted zone) which was about 80% of the building overall height (330m for WTC2) and 90% (370m WTC1) so the actual freefall times from those zones (sqrt(2h/a) is 8.2 secs for WTC2 and 8.7 secs for WTC1. The actual collapses took at least 150% of those times to reach ground level so, for WTC2, 330m was traversed in ~12 secs which is an average speed of 27.5m/sec so my average kinetic energy figure 0.5mv^2 for 100000 tonnes isn't too far out at around 40 gigajoules.

My observation of the videos shows the speed of collapse for both towers was fairly constant over the last 100m or so which indicates terminal velocity had been reached, dictated by the strength of the floors. If we use a constant acceleration for simplicity, the acceleration for a mass falling 330m in 12 seconds amounts to 4.6m/s^2 which is less than half the gravitational constant of 9.8. Even using the full height of the building at 414m only amounts to 5.8m/s^2 so the resistance of the floors is apparent but insufficient to arrest the collapse.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You're quite right - seems I didn't look at my notes and also mixed units as well.

As for the height used in the calcs, I used the height of the zone where collapse started (the impacted zone) which was about 80% of the building overall height (330m for WTC2) and 90% (370m WTC1) so the actual freefall times from those zones (sqrt(2h/a) is 8.2 secs for WTC2 and 8.7 secs for WTC1. The actual collapses took at least 150% of those times to reach ground level so, for WTC2, 330m was traversed in ~12 secs which is an average speed of 27.5m/sec so my average kinetic energy figure 0.5mv^2 for 100000 tonnes isn't too far out at around 40 gigajoules.



Your calculations are flawed.

The reason.. The floors above the area the colapse started cannot be discounted from the calculations as they would have had to colapse initially before the rest of the building.

I might also add into the fray the concept of symmetry here... The buildings collapsed uniformly.. Neatly in on themselves.

The rules of physics dictate that if there was a floor collapse as the official story states then there would have been variable amounts of resistance

Go to go, my child is being a nuisance. I'll be back in a little while to drill down the maths behind this.

Power to the People!!

NeoN HaZe



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Neon Haze
 


I'm keen to see your reasoning there

To me, the 20-odd floors above where the WTC2 collapse commenced fell as an intact section that broke apart on the way down. If only we could see through all that dust.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
...the acceleration for a mass falling 330m in 12 seconds amounts to...

A couple of questions, as I don't have the raw data.

Why are you using a height of 330 m, when the top of the tower was 414.5 m? It would not matter if the collapse of the tower was initiated from the bottom floor up, as we would not consider the tower collapsed until the TOP hits the BOTTOM.

Also, do you have an official time interval from the moment that the top of the tower began to move, until the moment it ceased moving? That's the only time interval that should be used for the collapse. In my calculations, I used 10 seconds, as given in the OP, which was mentioned in the 9/11 report.

I'm hoping to obtain some simple video analysis software (used for high school education) which can track a top corner of the tower and plot a basic displacement-time graph of the pixel, as it moves across the screen. I've seen the software work before and it is really simple, once the scale is set, being careful to minimise parallax shear effects due to a non-aligned camera.

A basic displacement-time graph for the top of the tower, with around twelve time points, will settle all arguments about instantaneous and averaged velocties and accelerations. Twelve points will be enough for most types of regression curves to see how well the collapse fits a terminally damped quadratic.

I'm not interested in speculation. I want raw data, as I can perform my own analysis. I just don't have the raw data!



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Raw data is definitely the hard part and our best guesses are mostly all we have here. I've seen a variety of estimates for the collapse times from about 10 seconds to as high as 16 seconds or even more so the 12-13 seconds fits right in there.

Here's a frame by frame analysis of the WTC1 collapse which arrives at a figure on the upper extremes of the range.

It's just my opinion but I see the top section breaking up as it batters its way through the building and by about 1/2 way through the collapse it's actually caught up because the collapse isn't progressing at freefall speed allowing the very highest material to accelerate a little faster as the contact area in the collapse zone is progressively smashed up and dispersed. The excess broken up sections at the collapse front are spilling off the remains of the outer walls tearing them away as it goes down. I see the active collapse front as being self regulating and having an essentially constant mass (resulting in essentially terminal velocity due to the fairly constant resistance) because of the excess material spilling over the sides - the approximately 80% of the building's mass that landed outside the walls which leaves that ~100000 active tonnes I spoke of earlier.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by Neon Haze
 


I'm keen to see your reasoning there

To me, the 20-odd floors above where the WTC2 collapse commenced fell as an intact section that broke apart on the way down. If only we could see through all that dust.



I feel i am quite lucky actually as I found three you tube vids that expalin my reasoning... If you require it I will post the actuall equations required for the data.

I respect whoever posted these vids as they knew what I know and were able to present the information so well.

Here are the vids.





Here is another vid to answer your initial question about what happened to and what should have happened to the top section of the towers.



Interesting evidence indeed...

Power to the People!!!

NeoN HaZe



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
awesome work, neon haze.
there are more and more REAL science arguments everyday that are pulling the cloak of deception off the eyes of the people.
power to the people!



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Thanks Billybob


And also thanks go out for all those that are helping this thread move forwards.

I might also add there appears to be a severe lack of De-Bunkers showing their faces here...

I would like to ask the debunkers....What's wrong?? Having a hard time to come up with a subjective argument against the cold logic of physics???



I would also like to hear from people who have had their eyes opened by this outstanding evidence.

Power to the People!!

NeoN HaZe


[edit on 4-7-2008 by Neon Haze]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze

I might also add there appears to be a severe lack of De-Bunkers showing their faces here...

I would like to ask the debunkers....What's wrong?? Having a hard time to come up with a subjective argument against the cold logic of physics???



Neon,

Most if not all debunks/realists have seen this argued over and over at least 50 times over the past 6+ years.

Your OP states that the towers fell at free fall speed. I disagree.

We see several reports that rage from close to 9seconds to close to 19 seconds. Dust clouds obscuring the end of the collapse makes a accurate estimation difficult.

The rate of free fall in a vacuum, at least, is easier to define. The towers were around 417 metres tall (excluding the spire), giving 417 = 0.5 gt^2, so with g = 9.8m/s^2 that gives a time of about 9.22 seconds. So if you dropped a ball off the roof, and there were no air resistance, then that’s the time it would take to reach the ground.

Large chunks of rubble, which are in free fall, are clearly falling faster than the rest of the building. There are several videos and photographs that show this.

Please watch this video of the collapse. Please let me know what you think the collapse time is by watching this.

Thank you.




Next, please read this paper written by Dr. Frank Greening. (FDF format)
911myths.com...

This detailed paper goes into detail about the hows and whys of the collapse.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt


Next, please read this paper written by Dr. Frank Greening. (FDF format)
911myths.com...

This detailed paper goes into detail about the hows and whys of the collapse.



I have reviewed the above paper with great interest as it actually supports my hypothesis.

What it does attempt to do however is suggest that compound mass counter acts the effect of resistance the collapse meets at each floor...

I might draw your attention to the simulations shown above. If the pancake version of events is correct then we would have expected to see a collapse in around 42-43 seconds.

Even if we take the uppermost time limit placed upon the collapse at 18 seconds... it is some 24 seconds short of expectation based upon known physics.

But don't just take my word for it...

MIT Engineer... Jeff King



Prof. David R Griffin -



Dr Steven E Jones P.h.D



I admire these people for standing up and fighting the good fight directly. I have a family and my first thoughts always go to them.

Let's hope nothing meets these highly respected and intelligent people!!

Power to the People!!

NeoN HaZe



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 



According to the 9-11 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), "the specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this tim."

Aside from its startling nonchalance, this statement makes a rather profound assumption. Again, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever collapsed from fire.

The flattened ruins are WTC1 and WTC2 (in the middle), and WTC7 (at the bottom)

This fact was known to firemen. Hence their unflinching rush up into the skyscrapers to put out the fire. Partly it was bravery, to be sure, but partly it was concrete knowledge that skyscrapers do not collapse due to fire. Yet after 100 years, three collapsed in one day.

Did the FEMA investigators not think to ask the New York City Fire Department how they thought the fire started, or how the fires could have caused the astounding, historical collapse? This would seem to be an elementary step in any investigation about a fire. Instead, they chose to leave the cause of the collapse “unknown.”


So if the science is correct (none of it goes beyond the tenth grade level), then we know that the floors of the three WTC buildings were not pancaking but were falling simultaneously. We also know that fire is an insufficient explanation for the initiation of the collapse of the buildings.

There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on 9-11. In this method, each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously ? and in virtual freefall. This method, when precisely used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings all over the world in the past few decades. This method could have brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds. This method is called controlled demolition.

I rest my case!



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Neon Haze
 


Viewing videos online is a luxury we dialuppers can only dream of although I sometimes manage to download the shortest ones without crashing the PC.

I can't agree with the claim of a freefall speed collapse based what I've seen to date although there is a large degree of uncertainty on the actual time because the end of the collapses was obscured by dust. As stated earlier truly freefalling heavy steel debris from just below the collapse initiation zone (that 330m again) with a density of ~8T/m^3 reached the ground when the collapse front was barely half way down.

The towers were symmetrical structures so I see nothing odd about the fact they collapsed symmetrically, it would have been different if the impacts had caused them to topple sideways (fortunately they didn't) .

A couple of questions I'd ask when it comes to the resistance figure you use:

Were the upper floors in either building any stronger or weaker than the lower floors (with the exception of the 'mechanical' floors of course)?

How much of the strength of any individual floor do you attribute to the core and outer walls?


[edit on 5/7/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by cashlink

I rest my case!



No, you plagiarized your case. This is not your writing. How do I know? There isn't one spelling error.

You took this article from here: physics911.net...

It was originally written here: www.garlicandgrass.org...

I don't think Mr. Heller would appreciate you posting his letters without giving him proper considerations.

Anyway, Mr. Heller offers nothing in this entire rant but the typical garbage. Speculation and assumptions without facts or figures. Oh, and when you talk to Mr. Heller... let him know of the true time it took for WTC-7 to collapse.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Neon Haze
 

Jeff King is not an "MIT engineer" - he studied some electrical engineering there in the 70s and has worked as a family medical Dr for the last 25 years.

How this makes him qualified to comment on building collapses I'm not sure - a step up from Martin Sheen I suppose.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by FatherLukeDuke
 


I might add that Dr. Griffin is a doctor in theology. Now, credentials aren't EVERYTHING. IF the message is correct, who cares who wrote it.

Mr. Jones was severed from his job a BYU after his thermite paper came out.

Dr. Griffins book took a beating from NASA Scientist Ryan Mackey. Dr. Griffin received a copy of Mr. Mackey's white paper. He has yet to refute anything in Mr. Mackey's paper.

Mr Mackey's paper can be found here:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
The towers did not fall at free fall speed. "near" free fall is often the term used.


And that small difference has some kind of significance to you, as opposed to it not being there at all? You realize this is a rigid steel skyscraper falling and smashing into itself repeatedly and not a leaf falling through the air and simply experiencing drag, right?

WTC7 accelerated at free-fall, right on the nose. Roof line descended from the start at 9.8m/s^2, not even to mention the unbelievable symmetry, also right from the start. Seeing that building fall is when I first realized how stupid this country is, and how corrupt our military has become.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by wolf241e
The more that I hear this kind of evidence, the more I can't believe that many people simply don't believe it.


I think I've realized something in this regard.

There are generally two different ways people here are wired: to form a view logically from the "ground up" for themselves, or to assume what is "most true" simply by watching the actions of others around them.

People with questions about what happened on 9/11, genuinely have unresolved questions about things which are suspicious or don't make logical sense to them (because logical sense is what they are after). It's something internal and nagging until some resolution is reached. The issues could be different for each person but seem fall upon the same odd features of that day's events.

People that feel settled about 9/11 tend to look at other people who also feel settled about what happened, feel verified when they do so, and then proceed to belittle anyone that comes to disagree with them, reinforcing their current view with a lot of ego and identity with their own opinion as they do so. Physical anomalies and methods for proofs don't matter so much to them mostly because they refuse to think for themselves before looking around to others to see what other people are thinking/saying first, and they always look first for people who agree with them already. Very inconvenient to realize something that will change your opinion after you've already associated so much of your ego with it, and even moreso to these people when it appears as though you would suddenly be a minority in a group (a big taboo?).


What causes the difference is probably something psychologists could write books on, probably largely dealing with self-confidence and whatever causes humans to behave irrationally in large groups in the first place.

[edit on 5-7-2008 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join