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.
Originally posted by pteridine
Why would they need the attacks to accomplish any of these?
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by adam_zapple
Source for demo company that disagrees with you:
www.jod911.com...
Please point out the actual section that you think disagrees with me.
Originally posted by ANOK
I understand the physics just fine, which is why I recommended that you discuss your thoughts with a physics professor. Specifically, your thoughts on the "path of least resistance".
You THINK you do, but I've already shown you where you're wrong, you just don't know enough to know that you're wrong.
Originally posted by ANOK
You have yet to show me where I'm wrong on the path of LEAST resistance.
I even supplied proof of what the path of least resistance is. This is not rocket science, the path of LEAST resistance means exactly what it says, if an object hits resistance it will try to take a path of LEAST resistance. If it can't take that alternate path it either stops or slows down, depending on the resistance met. When two objects of unequal mass collide the greater mass will have the least acceleration, and the smaller mass more, which is why the bigger object will not be overwhelmed by the smaller one.
You CANNOT have a crushing motion from that situation.
Originally posted by ANOK
You seriously need a source for a basic physical truth? This just shows how little you understand. YOU need to go talk to a physics prof.
Originally posted by ANOK
Again this is an obvious observation from years of known physics. If you need a source then I can't help you sorry.
Originally posted by ANOK
What "hammer example?" None of your prior posts in this thread mentioned hammers. If your'e referring to your question about "what would happen if you drop an object onto another object of equal mass" I answered your question already.
No you didn't.
Originally posted by ANOK
OK the hammer analogy might have been another thread, but I did repeat the analogy here also, so you're just playing ignorant.
Originally posted by ANOK
Again one more time. Take a steel hammer and hit, as hard as you want, a sheet of aluminium, until one or the other fails from fatigue. Which would fail first?
Originally posted by ANOK
Isn't it obvious the aluminium would fail first?
Originally posted by ANOK
Please explain, without sources to 9/11 sites, how am I wrong on this? I want YOUR answer, not someone elses.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Really? I still have the VHS tapes that my wife threw in the VCR and recorded from the reports of the first impact to the collapse of WTC 7 that day.........
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by lycopersicum
Mass does matter. The site you linked to even explains that momentum is defined as a mass times its velocity. Those are the terms used for collisions, etc.
The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The over 10-fold disparity between the most conservative estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments.
Certain collisions are referred to as elastic collisions. Elastic collisions are collisions in which both momentum and kinetic energy are conserved. The total system kinetic energy before the collision equals the total system kinetic energy after the collision. If total kinetic energy is not conserved, then the collision is referred to as an inelastic collision...
...In the collision between the truck and the car, total system momentum is conserved. Before the collision, the momentum of the [moving] car is 20000 kg*m/s and the momentum of the [stationary] truck is 0 kg*m/s; the total system momentum is 20000 kg*m/s. After the collision, the momentum of the car is -10000 kg*m/s and the momentum of the truck is +30000 kg*m/s; the total system momentum is 20000 kg*m/s. The total system momentum is conserved. The momentum lost by the car (30000 kg*m/s) is gained by the truck....
Elastic Collision, Massive Target
In a head-on elastic collision between a small projectile and a much more massive target, the projectile will bounce back with essentially the same speed and the massive target will be given a very small velocity. One example is a ball bouncing back from the Earth when we throw it down.
Posted by ANOK
Then why did the top of WTC 2 start to tip over? And then mysteriously lose it's angular momentum? Where is the explanation for that?
Originally posted by esdad71
There are 4 corners to a building. 1 is damaged. 30 floors are above it, and in assistance of the initial strike which destroyed needed support along with fire caused the top to slide.
Once it slides far enough there is not enough support underneath BASED on the structural design. Therefore, the resistance it SHOULD encounter is not there and the only thing stopping it is gravity. It starts to fall toward the damaged corner.....
Second, so, now the explained theory is WTC 1 and 2 were bought down with unconventional CD explosives and WTC 7 was a conventoinal CD? ....
Don't worry, with Obama in office I am sure full disclosure is only days or weeks away.
Also, telling someone to test a theory of aluminum vs steel with a hammer is about as good as Stephen Jones and his pot of thermite...
Originally posted by ANOK
Originally posted by esdad71
There are 4 corners to a building. 1 is damaged. 30 floors are above it, and in assistance of the initial strike which destroyed needed support along with fire caused the top to slide.
Unsubstantiated assumption.
Once it slides far enough there is not enough support underneath BASED on the structural design. Therefore, the resistance it SHOULD encounter is not there and the only thing stopping it is gravity. It starts to fall toward the damaged corner.....
Which is what happened, it's called 'angular momentum'. Except the gravity stopping it, what does that mean lol?
But you have not finished explaining this. How does that cause a symmetrical global collapse of the rest of the building?
According to the law of 'angular momentum' it should have continued unless it met an outside force (resistance). What force caused it to stop its momentum? The only thing it could have done is continue falling off the side, if the pivot point failed it would have fallen faster, not suddenly decide to fall straight down through the path of most resistance. The only way that could happen is if the bottom collapsed independently of the top.
Second, so, now the explained theory is WTC 1 and 2 were bought down with unconventional CD explosives and WTC 7 was a conventoinal CD? ....
Huh, you just realising this? You can't see the difference between the two collapses? I'm not interested in explosives, just the visual physical evidence and what it points to.
Don't worry, with Obama in office I am sure full disclosure is only days or weeks away.
Who cares about Obama, I'm a libertarian socialist, I support no politician.
Also, telling someone to test a theory of aluminum vs steel with a hammer is about as good as Stephen Jones and his pot of thermite...
You have obviously NEVER done any scientific research have you. If you can't see the point of that analogy then that just shows how much you really understand... Or care....
I guess you think the water balloon analogy was better?
[edit on 1/22/2009 by ANOK]
Originally posted by lycopersicum
reply to post by ANOK
i totaly agree with what you are say about that law and your are talking about this and yes it applies to moving objects if both are moving
im talkin about this en.wikipedia.org...
didnt the plane keep going through building in all videos ???? so that being the case no matter what we could not have had any backward acceleration
only if the plane bounced off the building could we have backward acceleration true or false ?? was this not what we had that day (cough)
did the plane not continue forward and supposedly sever the core columns ???