It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Evidence Of Explosives Hurling 4ton Wall Sections on Winter Gardens Roof

page: 17
18
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
If it fell slower then free fall, then there was resistance. Your failure to see this isn't my problem. It's yours.

You are again fixating on the 'speed', this is why you are missing the point here. The speed is irrelevant, what's important is the fact the buildings didn't slow during the collapse but continued to accelerate through thousands of tons of undamaged building.
The only way for an object to fall through the path of most resistance is to take that resistance away.

And your statement that it didn't slow down during the collapse is ridiculous also. What happens if it's at equilibrium? Why would it continue to slow down? What if the resistance is greater, but the weight increases?
What happens when your parachute opens? You slow down initially, granted. But then you reach equilibrium between the drag (resistance) of your 'chute, and you are descending at a constant rate.
By your definition, I should be descending slower and slower. So if I open high enough, I'll stall? Clearly NOT the case.

A building collapsing is nothing like a parachute. A parachute is using air pressure, just like any object falling with no resistance (other than air) will reach equilibrium after some time ( a lot longer than it took those towers to fall).
Now the towers had thousands of tons of undamaged building resisting the collapse, not just air. Your parachute doesn't create a build up of resistance from air, it's constant. The build up of resistance from a collapsing building is completely different.

As far as weight there was no extra weight introduced that the building wasn't designed to hold by at least x2. At that safety factor it could hold twice it's own weight, and the figure is probably higher than x2.
And most of your weight was ejected and fell outside the towers footprints anyway (except WTC7), so how was weight a factor?

Your failure to see this isn't my problem...

Try again, this time, I'll expect you to produce something that would convince a member of the CTBUH to look into your claims.

LOL you should try going to school again and learn some basic physics.

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:11 PM
If it fell at less than free fall acceleration, then there was resistance.

The failure to see this is your problem, not mine.

posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 06:27 PM
The WTC Towers were exploded outward in all directions and pulverized into powder, and WTC7 was imploded with each wall folding inward on the building contents.

The Pulverized Office Contents, The Pulverized Human Remains, and
The Steel Outer Wall Units land up to 600 feet from the base of the Tower.

Original image

Pressure was applied outward in all directions, at all levels.
The 'Point of Origin' of this pressure wave is evident.
Photographs and videos.
The 'Point of Origin' is in the CENTER OF THE CORE.

A loyal WTC firefighter victim family member presents conclusive evidence that explosives blew 4-ton exterior wall sections 600 feet away from the North Tower to land upon the glass roof of the Winter Gardens building.

C.S.I. 9/11 by Josef Princiotta

Multi-ton exterior wall sections from WTC1 were hurled 600 feet away by explosives of some nature onto WFC3 and Winter Gardens.

posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
If it fell at less than free fall acceleration, then there was resistance.
The failure to see this is your problem, not mine.

Once again it has nothing to do with the collapse SPEED. Didn't I just explain this, or did you not bother to read?

The fact that the building collapsed completely and SYMMETRICALLY proves there was no resistance, not the collapse speed. Because any amount of resistance would cause an imbalance and you would not have had a SYMMETRICAL collapse.

Simple physics. It is IMPOSSIBLE to produce a perfect system from chaos, in other words a building cannot collapse symmetrically into the path of most resistance from an unbalanced force. It had to have been controlled, quod erat demonstrandum.

The failure to understand basic physics is your problem, not mine...

posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 10:40 PM
reply to post by SPreston

So you are saying SPreston that the WTCs were packed with MEGA tons of high power explosives on every single floor? I mean this is pretty much what you are suggesting, because that is what would have been required to launch anything that far.

But wait! Could there be an alternate theory? Could it be the result of the fact that the Towers were well over 1,000ft tall? Sooooooo if a building is that tall, isnt it logical that some debris will land 500-600 ft away? Are you forgetting the fact that the exterior columns in effect, peeled away like a banana peel during the collapse which would send some of the steel farther away from the base?

posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 05:42 AM

I dont see him ever mentioning MEGA Tons of high explosives, those are your words not his. You have also used that exact same ploy with me before in another thread. Perhaps you should review your debating technique, It appears to be a bit of a joke.

PEACE,
RK

posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 11:55 AM
reply to post by Rigel Kent

Well that is what is being suggested to be capable of "launching" the external column tree sections that far. You would require that each floor be loaded with tons and tons and tons of high explosive all over the area. A few hundred pounds of semtex, C4, cutter charges, etc, will not have the power to launch a steel section that far, and pulverize the concrete into dust (which also did not happen on that scale).

This is why the CD IDEA is so flawed. To understand the facts about how explosives work, is another way to understand how UNREALISTIC the CD idea is. Think about it: Each column tree is about 3 floors tall (roughly). They are all staggered by 1/3 each length. To be able to "launch" any of these column trees in a whole section, (and lets not forget how much open space is in them for the windows), you would need a very large sum of high power explosives packed around every single column tree to be able to give it enough "oomph" to be horizontally launched. Thats just for one section. Now multiply that by all the floors. You are literally talking about an absurd amount of high power explosives. Hence why I said mega-tons of explosives. Because a few hundred lbs spaced out deep in the core area (60-100ft away) will not be able to "launch" a column tree horizontally 500+ft.

posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 03:06 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

The fact that the building collapsed completely and SYMMETRICALLY proves there was no resistance, not the collapse speed.

I'm quite sure, given your demonstrated lack of education in physics, that you actually believe that the rate of collapse front acceleration has nothing to do with the amount of resistance that the building gave to the falling debris.

Unfortunately for you, you are both wrong and embarassing yourself with this statement. But then again, ignorance is bliss, so you're quite unaware of your embarassing statements.

Because any amount of resistance would cause an imbalance and you would not have had a SYMMETRICAL collapse.

Why's that?

Show your math to back this statement.

Failure to provide the math proves that you are doing nothing but pulling an unsubstatiated statement out of your backward facing orfice....

posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
those are your words not his.

That's cuz truthers are either unable to, or afraid to expose their stupidity by providing any numbers to show how little or how much they think would be needed.

You see this a lot in the TM. They're scared poopless to provide numbers.

top topics

18