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.

 

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

page: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   
SB I posted the math for a freefall speed on the WTC1&2.
Some time ago.

I will note the emotional pettiness of your comment about nuclear device as I consider the source.




posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- good, that's what I see too. FWIW, I see the cap continuing its rotation as the building fell, it's just slow, so it in no way violates the whole angular momentum argument. What I take issue with is the ridiculous statement that it should have fallen over the side.


It should have fallen over the side because of the old 'angular momentum' physics law thingy, you know the one you confused with your new term 'horizontal momentum' when you said 'horizontal momentum' has to be maintained?

The only reason it didn't was because the building that was holding it up suddenly and very quickly dropped. This totally contradicts any hypothesis that the top falling caused the collapsing of lower floors through it's weight and lol 'potential energy'.

What caused the building , WTC2, to suddenly and asymmetrically fall? It's impossible for the top to have done it. All the fires were contained in the top portion so any 'weakened steel' would have been only in that top portion. There is no reason for the tower to have collapsed that you, or anyone, can explain without considering explosives of some kind. There is nothing else that could have taken out all those columns, thus all the resistance, to such a catastrophic level to cause complete symmetrical collapse.

And we haven't even considered how the top became detached to be able to start to fall off the top of the tower to begin with. The planes impact and fires did not do that, period.


2-So what did you mean by this , when you posted it on the 9th? "I'm not saying explosives are the only explanation, "


Well I was just humouring you really mate. Trying not to be too rigid in my beliefs as to what happened. I'm extremely open to any other ideas of what may have caused what we have evidence of, but there isn't one at the mo, is there?

Other than, 'everything just tipped over and gravity suddenly became this massive steel smashing force. Steel that was so loaded up with 'potential energy' it became a force of its own as yet known to modern physics. And anything moving horizontally has to continue doing so no matter what....


If you have anything else please share, we'd love to see it.

[edit on 12/12/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

It should have fallen over the side



1- So explain a little about how you think this should have happened. No math required, ok? Just explain what the hinge point would have been, for starters. Cuz normally, a hinge needs to be in a sngle plane, and I don't see one that could support the upper block all by itself. The entire core couldn't do it, as it's what, 80' x 120'? That's pretty big to function as a hinge point. Also, perhaps you could explain how any hinge point you decide to use could survive more than a couple degrees of angle before it buckled, especially since any hinge you choose is also holding a weight that prolly 1/2 of its ultimate strength already. This could only lead to collapse initiation.

2- So do you have any interest in picking up the challenge of providing some calcs about how much explosives, or TB's would be necessary? Griff seems to have slunk off after his last miserable attempt at it.



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by fmcanarney
1-SB I posted the math for a freefall speed on the WTC1&2.
Some time ago.

2-I will note the emotional pettiness of your comment about nuclear device as I consider the source.



1- did it resolve the issue of the fact that the ext columns can be seen falling faster than the collapse front? Or did you just ignore it and are pretending that this critical question doesn't exist. Does it also resolve the issue of the actual difference in collapse speed vs freefall speed? Or does it merely say, "it was nearly freefall speed!! Irrefutable proof of an inside jorb!!!!"

2- My comment had a point. Namely, that anyone that can believe that mini nukes were used in the first place displays a real problem with their thought processes and may not be the best source of any reliable info, and their opinion about just about anything shouldn't be given much weight at all. And you definitely qualify here....



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

Why are you lying again?

Aerial map of WTC site




The thing I find disturbing about that aerial view is that none of the surrounding buildings, no matter how small and pathetic, were demolished in the way that every single WTC building was precisely demolished.



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- So explain a little about how you think this should have happened. No math required, ok? Just explain what the hinge point would have been, for starters. Cuz normally, a hinge needs to be in a sngle plane, and I don't see one that could support the upper block all by itself. The entire core couldn't do it, as it's what, 80' x 120'? That's pretty big to function as a hinge point. Also, perhaps you could explain how any hinge point you decide to use could survive more than a couple degrees of angle before it buckled, especially since any hinge you choose is also holding a weight that prolly 1/2 of its ultimate strength already. This could only lead to collapse initiation.


You are partly right, but a little mixed up and your conclusions are illogical. The only people in the history of mankind who has ever made the claim that collapse was inevitable once initiated was NIST, and the only reason they said that was because they new very well that they couldn't explain it and not give the game away. You have fallen for this lie, and your assumption of 'inevitable collapse' just proves you don't know what you're talking about.

Who said the hinge point wouldn't buckle? And how does the hinge point buckling initiate complete asymmetrical collapse?

Again regardless of the hinge point failing, the top should have continued it's angular momentum, as it continued to tilt and eventually slide off because it would eventually meet resistance, because as said it could not cause the whole building to suddenly asymmetrically globally collapse. It didn't gain any extra weight that the rest of the building hadn't already been holding up for a number of years, and the lower building had no structural damage.

The pivot point would fail, not the whole building.


2- So do you have any interest in picking up the challenge of providing some calcs about how much explosives, or TB's would be necessary? Griff seems to have slunk off after his last miserable attempt at it.


No. Why are you so impressed with calcs? Why don't you do the calcs and then come back with your findings, which I am more than confident will be totally meaningless.

So, why don't you explain how the top section started tilting in the first place?

[edit on 12/12/2008 by ANOK]



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
2- So do you have any interest in picking up the challenge of providing some calcs about how much explosives, or TB's would be necessary?

You choose when and where you decide to provide calculations for your claims, Seymour. You often fail to provide calculations when one of your points is challenged.

I don't see how you can challenge any one to do the exact same thing that you often ignore yourself!



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

1-The only people in the history of mankind who has ever made the claim that collapse was inevitable once initiated was NIST,

2-Who said the hinge point wouldn't buckle? And how does the hinge point buckling initiate complete asymmetrical collapse?

3-Again regardless of the hinge point failing, the top should have continued it's angular momentum,

4-as it continued to tilt and eventually slide off

5- It didn't gain any extra weight that the rest of the building hadn't already been holding up for a number of years, and the lower building had no structural damage.

6-No. Why are you so impressed with calcs?

7-Why don't you do the calcs and then come back with your findings, which I am more than confident will be totally meaningless.

8-So, why don't you explain how the top section started tilting in the first place?



1- So I guess you're not familiar with the findings of Bazant, the CTBUH, and ACSE? They all agree that collapse was inevitable once initiated. So it looks like it is you who have fallen for this lie...

2- The very act of the building even beginning to rotate requires that the rest of the structure at that level has been compromised. Mainly, a structure 208' across, once it goes through 1-2 degrees of rotation no longer has any of its structural members in alignment anymore. Thus, it MUST collapse. Whether it collapses symmetrically or not from that point on does not depend on any hinge point. Therefore, your question about how a hinge failing could cause an asymmetrical collapse is irrelevant. The question to ask is whether or not it should collapse symmetrically at all. A totally different question.

3- It did, from what I can tell in the videos.

4-this is just stupid.

5-So once the columns are misaligned due to the tilt and buckle, you expect it to continue to stand? Really?

6- Cuz the whole extraordinary claim that explosives of some type were used is a truther's working hypothesis. A calc proving how much explosive needed would instantly invalidate this hypothesis, which is why no one wants to take a stab at it. I discount Griff's lame attempt cuz I know he could do better work if he wanted to.

7- Me? I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim. Truthers are. Also, even if I prove that the amount needed was ridiculous for even 1 column tree, it would mean nothing to any of the truthers here. They will reject it with a religious fervor like creationists reject any challenge to their beliefs. For that's what the TM is, a "belief" that requires no logical thinking to believe in.

8- the ext columns buckled on one side, along with the core columns. The far side ext columns hung in there for a split second, and provided the hinge point to initiate rotation. Long story short, the top rotated as it fell the first few meters. Then the hinge failed, the top continued its slow rotation, but the collapse had initiated, and the portion of the top still inside footprint contributed to the collapse weight. Then, from what I can see through the dust, the top... maybe 1/2... fell to the ground without impacting the intact portions.



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
2- So do you have any interest in picking up the challenge of providing some calcs about how much explosives, or TB's would be necessary?


I don't see how you can challenge any one to do the exact same thing that you often ignore yourself!


I have to wonder why Seymour is harping on me to do what NIST was tasked to do. And said that they would. I have seen NO ONE (both sides included) calculate anything regarding thermobarics. Why is that Seymour? Time to get your slide rule out I guess, eh? Or are they a little more complicated than that? Seeing as the shockwave bounces off walls and such.

So Seymour. Get to it and send NIST an e-mail.



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I have to wonder why Seymour is harping on me to do what NIST was tasked to do.



So NIST was tasked with discovering whether or not the insane idea that sooper seekrit hush-a-boom thermobarics might have been used?

I harp on you cuz it's YOUR idea. But, and as I've mentioned, an important step to a working hypothesis is making an attempt at falsifying it.

No surprise then that even though I KNOW you're smart enough to figure it all out, right down to the expected dB spl, you will never make a serious effort at it.

Whatever it takes to maintain the self delusion, eh?



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Again.


Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Hence the need for some calcs about how much explosives, or TB's would be needed to do what you are basing your working hypothesis on.

When will you do this?


If I have to explain to you again that it is nearly impossible to calculate thermobarics, I'll scream. So, I'll just post the rest of that page I posted before with the equations (I actually found the rest of it).


Vapor cloud explosion modeling historically has been subject to large uncertainties resulting from inadequate understanding of deflagrative effects. According to current single-degree of freedom models, blast damage/injury can be represented by Pressure-Impulse (P-I) diagrams, which include the effects of overpressure, dynamic pressure, impulse, and pulse duration. The peak overpressure and duration are used to calculate the impulse from shock waves. Even some advanced explosion models ignore the effects of blast wave reflection off structures, which can produce misleading results over- or under-estimating the vulnerability of a structure. Sophisticated software used to produce three-dimensional models of the effects of vapor cloud explosions allows the evaluation of damage experienced by each structure within a facility as a result of a primary explosion and any accompanying secondary explosions produced by vapor clouds.


www.globalsecurity.org...

Care to buy me this "sophisticated software"? If so, I'll do your computations for you.

Notice how I said that I'll do your calculations for you?

I'm not your personal calculator BTW. Do the damn calcs yourself if you're so smart and sure about the results.



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
So NIST was tasked with discovering whether or not the insane idea that sooper seekrit hush-a-boom thermobarics might have been used?


Yes.


Contracts
Awards

WTC 7 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND COLLAPSE HYPOTHESES, CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL AND BLAST ANALYSES

Under GSA Contract number GS23F0278M, NIST Order No. SB1341-06-8-0539, as a firm fixed price effort, has been awarded to APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA) of Albuquerque, New Mexico, to append the following tasks to the original contract awarded on March 31, 2006. Under the appended tasks, the ARA (1) shall conduct analyses of impact damage and fire effects to provide candidate initiating events which may lead to structural failures and global collapse, and (2) shall determine if there is any scenario of a hypothetical blast event or events that could have occurred in WTC 7 on September 11, 2001.


wtc.nist.gov...

Sooper seekrit hush-a-boom thermobarics are a part of any scenario of a hypothetical blast event. Nist fails. And so do you.



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Yes.


WTC 7 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND COLLAPSE HYPOTHESES, CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL AND BLAST ANALYSES


No.

That's the contract for 7.

They did that analysis.

Please keep on point here. If you're gonna claim that NIST was contracted to do an analysis of explosives for 1 and 2, don't say that a contract for 7 applies to them.



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


If I have to explain to you again that it is nearly impossible to calculate thermobarics, I'll scream. So, I'll just post the rest of that page I posted before with the equations (I actually found the rest of it).



You need to reread your source again. It doesn't seem like you understand what you're reading.

It says that determining the effects that TBs have ON A BUILDING is hard to determine. I'm not asking you to do that. I'm asking you to figure out how big the blast must be in order to "blow" a single column tree 500'. Then, of course, you need to make an estimate of how many column trees you want to claim.

Notice that Mackey did this fairly easily, and didn't need to use any blast effects against a whole building to do it.

All you need is the info that HE used.

1-overpressure - note this is NOT the overpressure within the detonation zone. The column trees need to be outside the detonation zone, otherwise, as your source says, things twnd to get crushed, rather than propelled. One of your links mention that the overpressure from a TB is usually LOWER than conventional explosives. Mackey used 40 psi at 15.... meters?

2- pulse time. This is longer than CE's, and accounts for the damage against buildings. Note that Mackey used a very long time for his estimate, in order to lessen the amount, in favor of the truther claim that the building collapse would have covered up the noise.

3- column area exposed to the blast

4- column weight.

5- then take this proposed amount and find out how loud it would be.

Nothing more is needed. Quit making excuses already and prove that your working hypothesis is possible. Otherwise, the only consideration it deserves is



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


If it's so easy to calculate, you do the math and prove it's impossible. BTW, I want to see all the 5 million different thermobarics that are possible too.



[edit on 12/14/2008 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


If Seymour really thinks his argument is legit, then why isn't he attacking NIST for not running the calculations for expansion forces in the trusses and how much they would have deflected the perimeter columns, etc.? They were the ones that were actually PAID to do an investigation, which is to say it actually WAS their responsibility, unlike you or me or Seymour posting on an internet forum.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Seymoure. I must say I admire your patience with this fellows. It´s really amazing isn´t it? The people who offered the "EVIDENCE" haven´t shown ANY AT ALL. What they have done is speculate and made assumptions. They base their theories on optical perceptions from a few internet videos, and gossip, and misleading photos. They don´t offer any proof or calculations that are asked from them.
The one that has to proove things is YOU, the one who doesn´t accept what they are saying.
I for one still have to see the "EVIDENCE" that was offered here. It says EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES... If they are talking about explosives, why is it that they don´t say HOW MUCH WAS USED? Just an aproximate figure should be acceptable at least to discuss it, BUT NO, other people have to PROOVE the conspiracy wrong!!
I find it very frustrating to waste time reading these guys going in circles because they can´t proove anything.
I guess they are in denial really, and I must say I feel sad for them.




posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
They base their theories on optical perceptions from a few internet videos, and gossip, and misleading photos. They don´t offer any proof or calculations that are asked from them.


Thanks for explaining what NIST did to a T.


Unless of course you can post NIST's calculations that they offered.


BTW, I have shown more calculations in the 3 years I've been here than NIST has provided in their 10,000 page report that we paid millions for.



[edit on 12/18/2008 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Since it is my duty to do what NIST was taxed to do.


Originally posted by Seymour Butz
This is from Ryan Mackey's whitepaper that he did in response to DRG's junk.


In order to propel this column at the
speed required, say 30 meters per second, we would need charges of at least 700 kg TNT
equivalent



I'll simplify this.


The vacuum device yields the equivalent of 44 tons of TNT using 7.8 tons of a new type of high explosive developed with the use of nanotechnology.


en.wikipedia.org...

I believe this is in metric "tons" (1,000 kg = 1 ton) and not english units (2,000 lbs. = 1 ton).

So, 7,800 kg of thermobaric is equivalent to 44,000 kg of TNT or 18%.

Mackey calculated that it would take the equivalent of 700 kg of TNT.

Going by this 0.18 x 700 = 124 kg of thermobaric.

124 kg is equal to 273 lbs.

As a comparison:

There was about 10,000 gallons of fuel in the jets when they collided with the towers. Jet-A fuel is 6.6 lbs/gallon. Which gives us 66,000 lbs. of jet fuel.

Now, let's compare the sound of the jets crashing and exploding 66,000 lbs. of jet fuel to a 273 lb. thermobaric.

Approximately 900 feet away, the plane crashes were not very loud now where they?

So, are we really going to hear 273 lbs. of a thermobaric going off when we hardly heard 66,000 lbs. of jet fuel exploding at that height?

Really?



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Now, let's compare the sound of the jets crashing and exploding 66,000 lbs. of jet fuel to a 273 lb. thermobaric.

Approximately 900 feet away, the plane crashes were not very loud now where they?

So, are we really going to hear 273 lbs. of a thermobaric going off when we hardly heard 66,000 lbs. of jet fuel exploding at that height?

Really?



REALLY GRIFF? I honestly don´t get your point! I am absolutely positive that the plane crashes were LOUD AS HELL!! It just took a few seconds to reach where the observer was. (Speed of sound.)
The building collapse was LOUD AS HELL!! (Same delay.)
And please just explain how the special team would get 273 lbs. times I DON´T KNOW WHAT!! Probably like 1000, up there would you?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join