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.

 

Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...

page: 21
2
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Here BONEZ........

Actually, here you go, with video, a steel structure that collapsed after fire. This was in Holland

LINK TO VIDEO

This occurred May 2008 in the Architecture section. Maybe they were testing a theory...


Fact is, if you look at that collapse and you apply it to a structure that is 10 times it size and hit by aircraft you get a sense that this could occur. So, there is your building.

Looks like AE911T is once again incorrect.


[edit on 25-1-2009 by esdad71]




posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Also what I find interesting about that magic number of 140 db that NIST came up with: I never see at what distance.



So how in the world does someone make this statement,and say that they disagree with the NIST 7 report?

It's in the report.

Which makes it apparent that you haven't read it through.

Here's a link to check out some of that:

www.makeitlouder.com...



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Name one recommendation by NIST that directly relates to their new found theories.


Wider stairways

Better fire proofing for escape routes.

More consideration of fire effects on connectors

[edit on 25-1-2009 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 





main question

.125 gage aluminums Ultimate Shear Strength?

linear force of the wings front surface??
it did slow down once the nose impacted the building. the wings are further back on the plane



Why dont you talk about the keel beam - the strongest piece on an aircraft
it provides structural strength and supports cargo hold and main cabin

or the jet engines? High strength alloys and titanium

Or wing spars and ribs

or the landing gear - massive steel struts to take impact of 350,000 lb
slamming into ground at 200 mph?

Equivalent is wrapping basebat in tin foil - because I can tear the tin foil
does it mean if I beat your sorry butt it wont hurt?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Wider stairways


So, the towers and 7 collapsed because the stairways were not wide enough?


Better fire proofing for escape routes.


I wasn't aware that the escape routes were directly involved with the collapses.


More consideration of fire effects on connectors


I find it incredibly naive to think this hasn't already been done.

Or were the connections unique, never before fire tested connections?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Yes, I must have missed the 1/2 mile in the report. But, thanks for answering the question instead of snide remarks.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


Yeah that question doesn't really make a lot of sense.

You want thin light aluminium wing leading edges to act like slicing scissors and cut through, not one, but two sets of steel columns?

And you wonder why we find that hard to believe?


I don't know how many columns were cut or damaged by the plane impacts, but the fact that airplanes are made primarily of aluminum would not prevent it from severing a steel column.


Originally posted by ANOK
But the thing you keep missing is the damage cause by the planes is really irrelevant. Even IF the columns were completely severed it could still not cause a complete global collapse failure of the towers.


What's your source for this? Many of your claims seem to be based solely on what you think should have happened.


Originally posted by ANOK
The aircraft impact and damage didn't create a path of no resistance for the building to collapse into. Neither did the fires. So you still have that problem of the collapse speed and lack of resistance...


You keep claiming there was a "no resistance", even though you've been shown that it's incorrect.


Originally posted by ANOK
A progressive collapse is due to structural components failing over time, not in near free-fall acceleration.


Source? Examples?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I can show you in a lab how aluminium does not have enough mass to cause steel to fail in any way. I keep saying this and yet not one of you wants to actually prove me wrong by trying it. Go get some aluminium and steel (in proportion) and try it.


Aluminum can cause steel to fail....it's all about energy. Mass is only half of the equation.

I can smash a potato with a 2x4....but I can put that same potato into a potato gun, fire it at a 2x4 and split it in half. Same principle here...it's all about energy.

Back to 9/11...when the planes slammed into the towers...do you have any idea how much kinetic energy they had?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
The Boeing 767-200ER has a max takeoff weight of 395000lbs.

Flight 11 has been estimated to be 470mph or 689 ft/s.
Flight 175 has been estimated to be 590mph or 865 ft/s.

The kinetic energy released by Flight 11 was 0.5 x 395000 x (689)^2/32.174 or 2.914 billion ft/lbs force.

The kinetic energy released by Flight 175 was or 0.5 x 395000 x (865)^2/32.174 or 4.593 billion ft/lbs force.

Cheers!


[edit on 26-1-2009 by cogburn]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Do you have any more details about this collapse? It is interesting.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



did the WTC buildings not have a cartoon gut out of where the wings impacted the building ??


and did the pentagon have the same cartoon cut out ??


no they said the wings folded to fit in the hole did they not ??


and none here has used my formula to see that it was imposable

here it is agin geez you cant just ignore this it lost energy

where did the magical extra energy come from ???

en.wikipedia.org...

after the initial impact it lost 75% of its velocity i dont care if it was a solid piece of aluminum it didnt have enough energy to continue through the building, thats friggin physics

and besides nist said the plane broke up on impact so agin the breaking up absorbed the rest of its energy , so where did the magicle energy come from ??



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

1-So, the towers and 7 collapsed because the stairways were not wide enough?
I wasn't aware that the escape routes were directly involved with the collapses.

2-I find it incredibly naive to think this hasn't already been done.

Or were the connections unique, never before fire tested connections?


1-And, IIRC

Fire insulation that is tougher and/or "sticks" to the steel better.

Firefighter elevators and or dedicated stairs.

2- So then se's learned something from the collapses without NIST's input? Is that what you mean? Or.....?


The point is - the primary job is to make buildings safe for the occupants. A building that won't collapse under any circumstances isn't the job. It's perhaps a goal that may be attainable, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by cogburn
The Boeing 767-200ER has a max takeoff weight of 395000lbs.

Flight 11 has been estimated to be 470mph or 689 ft/s.
Flight 175 has been estimated to be 590mph or 865 ft/s.

The kinetic energy released by Flight 11 was 0.5 x 395000 x (689)^2/32.174 or 2.914 billion ft/lbs force.

The kinetic energy released by Flight 175 was or 0.5 x 395000 x (865)^2/32.174 or 4.593 billion ft/lbs force.

Cheers!


[edit on 26-1-2009 by cogburn]


Thanks for the numbers. Looking at that, do you have any idea how many sticks of dynamite it would take to damage the towers as much as the planes did?

Let's convert your figures to Joules.

1 ft/lb is approx 1.35 Joules.
for flight 11 that gives us: 3,950,801,199 Joules and
for flight 17 that gives us: 6,227,189,399 Joules

Now let's compare that energy to the energy in a stick of dynamite.

1 Stick of dynamite contains approx 2.1 Million joules of energy, so comparing the energy of the planes to dynamite we come up with these numbers:

energy of flight 11 - equivalent to 1,881 sticks of dynamite.
energy of flight 175 - equivalent to 2,965 sticks of dynamite.

(These figures are for the impact energy alone and do not factor in the energy released by any burning jet fuel or post-impact fires)



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

'O' ring failures are not a new never before seen event. For the shuttle yes, but ever, NO.



This shows the hyprocrisy of the truth movement.

Never before have the 0-rings failed at launch, causing total destruction of the shuttle.

Same for the foam strike.

This is the exact same argument that the TM uses. It never happened before, therefore it can't happen.

But when others point out that partial collapses can occur from fire, and to determine whether or not it can progress to a global failure takes an examination of the incident by qualified people ( youtubeing doesn't make one qualified ) the goalposts get moved to such hyper-specific exclusions that nothing could ever fit the TM's bill.

You have totally missed the fact that engineers have learned from these events and have attempted to fix them, cuz as I said, you don't learn from the incident, you learn from an examination of the incident.

The incident by itself means nothing.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
You have totally missed the fact that engineers have learned from these events and have attempted to fix them, cuz as I said, you don't learn from the incident, you learn from an examination of the incident.


How does one learn from an examination that never took place?

I'm talking about the WTC 7 steel and the lack of NIST's investigation into it.

How can NIST make recommendations on the fireproofing of steel that they never examined?

Guess work?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by lycopersicum
after the initial impact it lost 75% of its velocity i dont care if it was a solid piece of aluminum it didnt have enough energy to continue through the building, thats friggin physics


Mass + Velocity = Energy

Using the numbers supplied by Cogburn above...

energy of flight 11 - equivalent to 1,881 sticks of dynamite at impact
energy of flight 175 - equivalent to 2,965 sticks of dynamite at impact

(This does not include the energy of burning jet fuel or office contents)



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 
are you saying it carried that full energy all the way through the building??

if so are you saying the plane didnt meet any resistence at all??

are you saying the energy needed to destroy the plane didnt absorb or take any energy ??

after the intial impact are you saying it had the same energy all the way through the building ??

are you saying there was no energy loss at all from the plane ??

are you saying it kept its forward momentum and never lost any energy after impact??



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
I can smash a potato with a 2x4....but I can put that same potato into a potato gun, fire it at a 2x4 and split it in half. Same principle here...it's all about energy.
Back to 9/11...when the planes slammed into the towers...do you have any idea how much kinetic energy they had?


Oh really? Can you prove this? Are you positive this correlates with a building globally collapsing?

So what happened to that kinetic energy once the aircraft entered through he first set of columns? How much kinetic energy is left to then to damage thicker central core columns?

Then when we're done with that irrelevance, please explain how the severing of columns takes away resistance of undamaged columns, of approximately 80 floors? Where did the velocity of the top building section come from, that could create enough kinetic energy to globally collapse itself. Then explain why the top of WTC 2 lost it's angular momentum. Until you can satisfactorily explain those problems, then all your other points are irrelevant.

See you can't use physics to explain one thing, if it contradicts something else you're trying to claim. You can have your 'the planes severed the columns hypothesis' if you want to believe, it doesn't matter to me. Severed columns would not cause a global collapse.

The only thing that could happen, if all columns equally failed is what happened the top of WTC 2, but then something else intervened, and the top of WTC defied physics by not continuing its angular momentum. This is fact, whether you choose to ignore the physics is your problem. This is what, to me, is the most obvious evidence of something else acting on the collapses that we're not being told about.

But anyway NO plane hit WTC7, and it collapsed symmetrically with NO resistance, from asymmetrical damage and office fires. Have you figured out the kinetic energy of pieces of the towers that were ejected (by gravity) that hit WTC7? Did they have the same kinetic energy the planes did? Were the pieces full of jet fuel to help feed the fire? How did ejected steel manage to cause other steel to fail?

No matter how you twist your kinetic energy hypotheses, in the real world when objects collide the object with the less mass always loses. Remember when objects collide the force on each object is EQUAL. Which means the object with most mass will always win.


Apply Newtons 3rd Law

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So the forces between two crashing cars are equal in opposite directions. Now, apply Newton's Second Law, a = F/m. Each car experiences the same force during the collision but the acceleration, or deceleration in this case, is much greater for the less massive car. Use the formula to help guide your thinking:

big car F+M=a
small car F+m=a

www.iihs.org...



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by lycopersicum
reply to post by adam_zapple
 
are you saying it carried that full energy all the way through the building??


No. The totals I listed were much energy they had when they hit.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
if so are you saying the plane didnt meet any resistence at all??


Nope...resistance doesn't change the amount of energy the planes had at impact.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
are you saying the energy needed to destroy the plane didnt absorb or take any energy ??


Nope.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
after the intial impact are you saying it had the same energy all the way through the building ??


You asked that question twice....the answer is no.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
are you saying there was no energy loss at all from the plane ??


No. The plane went from a state of high kinetic energy to a state of no kinetic energy.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
are you saying it kept its forward momentum and never lost any energy after impact??


- The planes kept their forward momentum until their forward kinetic energy had dissipated.

They lost all of their energy between the first impact and the time that their momentum was 0.



Based on your questions it would seem that you believe after the planes hit the buildings that they lost too much energy to continue on and do additional damage inside the buildings...is this correct?

If so...do you believe that 2,965 sticks of dynamite could do what you believe that the plane was unable to do?



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
No. The totals I listed were much energy they had when they hit.
[...]
Nope...resistance doesn't change the amount of energy the planes had at impact.


Calculating the energy the planes impacted with is only doing half of the equation. The other half is the force they would have met upon impacting the building.

In physics, there is no difference between a 767 impacting a skyscraper at 600 mph, and a skyscraper impacting a 767 at 600 mph. Think about it.

Not saying they wouldn't have gone through, but you really aren't proving anything until you know what force it would have taken to cut through the exterior columns, etc., which is the "other half" of the equation.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join