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: 22
2
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
You got called out for your positive claim of hundreds...... and now you can't back it up. Since we both misspoke, how about we...

Actually, you misspoke and you were the one called out. We all know you can't come up with a list of 99.99% of SE's. I'm a member of AE911T, so I know that everyone there is not an SE. There is more than one site that SE's are members of. Did you look at any of the other 9/11 truth websites like Scholars or Patriots? Didn't think so.


Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Actually, here you go, with video, a steel structure that collapsed after fire.

You must not know what the definition of "global" collapse is. What you posted is a local or partial collapse. Only the top 7 or 8 floors that were fire-damaged collapsed. The floors below the fire damage and the rest of the building around the fire did not collapse. Global collapse is the whole entire complete building as you would see in a controlled demolition.


Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Looks like AE911T is once again incorrect.

Looks like you are incorrect once again and AE911T continues to be correct. Keep trying though.




posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


exactly

The formula is Perimeter times thickness times shear

i know the shear and thickness but whats the cross section of a 767 wing that would be the hole size for that section of the plane we need wing thickness from top to bottom (we know the with of the facade and outter columns(facade was 12 inches wide and outter columns 14 inches wide )

aluminum facade is 12 inches wide 1/4 inch
so it would be 12 inches + 12 inches +(wing height+wing height ) times .25 times 33,000 (33,000 is the Ultimate Shear Strength )

the outter columns are they ranged from 2 inches thick to 1/4 inch thick we will use 1/4 thick and they where 14 inches wide

so it would be 14 inches +14 inches +(wing height + wing height ) times .25 times 58,000 (58,000to 80,000) depending if its a36,a572,a441,a514 we will go with the lowest Ultimate Shear Strength of all the steel used which is 58,000

i have posted all this before but here it is agin

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
you can see here just how much kinetic energy was lost(sigh i put the info in but didnt copy over sorry )m1=117,910 m2=454,500,000 v1=250

en.wikipedia.org...
www.anvilfire.com...
www.roymech.co.uk...

guessing (on wing height as 8 inches could be less could be more sorry in advance )

12"+ 12"+ 8"+8"+=40 x .25=10 x 33,000=330,000
+ .25+.25+8"+8"+ =16.5 x 8=132x33,000= 4,356,000x 2 =8,712,000

total 330,000+8,712,000= 9,042,000 juels need per aluminum facade section and it hit 36 of them x36= 325,512,000 juels needed to cut the alluminum

outter columns
14"+14"+8"+8"+=44 x .25=11 x 58.000= 638,000 x 2 =1,276,000
+ .25"+.25"+8"+8" =16.5 x 14=231 x 58,000 =13,398,00 x2 =26,796,000

26,796,000+1,276,000=28,072,000 per outter column
it hit 36 columns x36=1,010,592,000

so total juels needs to punch through facade and outter columns =325,512,000+1,010,592,00= 1,336,104,000. now i know if some of the beams where thicker values will change but i used minimums for simplisity

1,336,104,000 juels needed what u guys get??

[edit on 26-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 26-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


Right...in this case, the building wins, but not without damage.


Originally posted by bsbray11
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.


Nope...just trying to put the numbers in perspective. It would take thousands of sticks of dynamite to match the energy that those planes had at impact....that's gonna do some serious damage.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


and for the core columns not counting having to go through concrete floor with 1 inch rebar in it juels needed to cut one colum 36"+36"+8"+8"+=88x4=352 x58,000=20,416,000 x2 =40,832,000+ 4"+4"+8"+8"+=24 x 16 =384 x58,000=22,272,000 x2 =44,544,000 + 40,832,000= 85,376,000 juels needed per core column
x how ever many it hit


[edit on 26-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 26-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 26-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

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...



I read " ...some of that" and was amused by the numerous errors in spelling and grammar exhibited by the author. How ironic. You attack members on ATS for spelling errors and bad grammar but ignore same when it comes to your sources. I suggest people investigate the various db levels and their relationships listed to verify accuracy.

Learn!



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

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?


This correlates with a "softer" material damaging a heavier, more dense material. ...or an object with relatively little mass damaging an object with greater mass. The potato is destroyed, but the board is split in half as well.


Originally posted by ANOK
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?


That depends on how fast the mass is moving, and how much of it there is. 3,000 sticks of dynamite can do quite a bit of damage...do you think that much dynamite could get rid of the first set of columns and also destroy some core columns?


Originally posted by ANOK
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?


It didn't...or the buildings would have fallen immediately when the planes hit.


Originally posted by ANOK
Where did the velocity of the top building section come from, that could create enough kinetic energy to globally collapse itself.


Gravity...and it didn't "create energy"..the energy was already there in the form of potential energy (like a roller coaster at the top of a hill).


Originally posted by ANOK
Then explain why the top of WTC 2 lost it's angular momentum.

It was being acted upon by the building beneath it.


Originally posted by ANOK
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.


And they didn't on 9/11.


Originally posted by ANOK
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.


So how do you explain it?


Originally posted by ANOK
But anyway NO plane hit WTC7, and it collapsed symmetrically with NO resistance,


"No resistance"? Now you're just being ridiculous. It fell slower than free-fall, which would be IMPOSSIBLE without resistance.


Originally posted by ANOK
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?


No. Feel free to do so since you claim to know the physics.


Originally posted by ANOKWere the pieces full of jet fuel to help feed the fire? How did ejected steel manage to cause other steel to fail?


1 - no
2 - Because it fell 500-1000 feet and gained a lot of kinetic energy along the way


Originally posted by ANOK
No matter how you twist your kinetic energy hypotheses, in the real world when objects collide the object with the less mass always loses.


"loses" is a relative term.


Originally posted by ANOKRemember when objects collide the force on each object is EQUAL. Which means the object with most mass will always win.


This doesn't mean that the "winning" object will not suffer significant damage.


Originally posted by ANOK

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...


...and the collision still damages both cars...even if one is made of aluminum and the other made of steel. ;-)

So am I to understand that you believe that 3,000 sticks of dynamite are not enough to cut some of the exterior and interior columns of one of the WTC towers?

[edit on 26-1-2009 by adam_zapple]



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

Originally posted by lycopersicum
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


and for the core columns not counting having to go through concrete floor with 1 inch rebar in it juels needed to cut one colum 36"+36"+8"+8"+=88x4=352 x58,000=20,416,000 x2 =40,832,000+ 4"+4"+8"+8"+=24 x 16 =384 x58,000=22,272,000 x2 =44,544,000 + 40,832,000= 853,760,000 juels needed per core column
x how ever many it hit



That means it would take over 400 sticks of dynamite to cut a single column......I think you better check your math.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 



the math is right infront of you check it your self why would you of all people trust my math since you have been nothing but rude to me dose that make you happy85,376,000

the numbers are there do it yourself



[edit on 26-1-2009 by lycopersicum]

[edit on 26-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
What people are forgetting it that it was the combined effects of the
impact and resulting fires which caused the collapse

The building survived the initial impact, but suffered tremendous damage
to it support structure.

The support structure of the buildings was incoroporated by the interior
columns in the center which supported most of the gravity loads, while
the exterior wall supported the dynamic (wind) loads on the structure

The structure was tied togather by the floor trusses and at the top of building by a hat truss which help to spread the loads.

When the aicraft hit it blew an enormous hole in the exterior walls, severing many of the support columns on the entry and exit sides

It also struck and either severed or damaged many of the interior columns
in the central core. The load was redistributed and do to load sharing
and built in redundancy was able to stand - for now

What the aircraft impacts also did was blast the fireproofing off the steel
columns - the spray on fireproofing was too fragile and easily dislodged
It was found that even the motion of air through the HVAC system
was sufficent over time to dislodge the fireproofing in the area. Imagine
what a 767 ploughing through the building will do

The aircraft impacts also disabled the fire supression (sprinklers) and fire
fighting (standpipes) by severing the plumbing to affected floors. Without
water the sprinklers could not supress the fires started by the jet fuel and
building contents

Also it destroyed the means of access (elevators/stairs) to the affected
areas by firefighters, who would have had a difficult controlling the fires
do to damage to the standpipe plumbing

The holes into the exterior walls feed fresh air to the fires - considering
that wind speed increases the higher one goes the effect would have been
similar to blast furnance as fresh air was injected into the burning mass

Looking at it overall one has

Bare steel columns exposed to intense fires with no means to supress
the fires which will fail do to the heating

The usual mantra - no steel building ever failed do to fire is not only false
(been numerous cases of building collapse from fire), but ignores several
unique conditions, multiple fires ignited on different floors at same time,
no fire fighting activity do damage to elevators, no sprinklers systems
controlling intensity and spread of fires allowed the fires to attack the
steel which had its fireproofing stripped off

Put all this togather you get a global collapse



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
That depends on how fast the mass is moving, and how much of it there is. 3,000 sticks of dynamite can do quite a bit of damage...do you think that much dynamite could get rid of the first set of columns and also destroy some core columns?


LOL obviously.

Dynamite? Who cares? What if it could destroy it? Again you’re missing the fact that it would still NOT become a global collapse.

And if you’re trying to say that proves the plane could do it, try again, and this time include the loss of momentum from hitting the buildings façade.


It didn't...or the buildings would have fallen immediately when the planes hit.


Well I'm glad you realise this. So you admit, as do NIST, that the planes impact had no significant effect on the buildings integrity?

www.911proof.com...



Gravity...and it didn't "create energy"..the energy was already there in the form of potential energy (like a roller coaster at the top of a hill).


LOL you have no idea what energy is do you? You think energy is a physical thing don't you? Potential energy is only present when an object is under stress, and a release of that stress changes the potential energy in kinetic energy.

You guys love throwing those two terms around and you don’t even understand them.

Your roller coaster doesn't have thousands of tons of steel between it and the bottom of the hill. Why do you folks keep ignoring all that steel, bolted and welded together, that had ZERO damage? You seem to think that gravity can somehow make all that mysteriously disappear?

Why would the top of the building have enough potential energy stored up to crush itself?
Were there giant bungee chords attaching it to the ground or something lol?

You just keep proving over and over again how week your knowledge of basic physics is, sorry pal.


[And they didn't on 9/11.


Yeah just what I thought, deny, deny ,deny, deny, deny, deny....

You dude need to put down the debunker manual and come up with something new, your tactics are so old school....


So how do you explain it?


Explain what? Why the top defied physics? Well that's what I'd like to know...
I can guess...
If you missed it go back and re-read, I’m tired of your circle jerks.


"No resistance"? Now you're just being ridiculous. It fell slower than free-fall, which would be IMPOSSIBLE without resistance.


Deny, deny, deny....The buildings, all three, experienced at least one period of free fall acceleration, according to NIST. So take it up with them.

www.journalof911studies.com...

You are being ridicules in your definition of resistance.


No. Feel free to do so since you claim to know the physics.


LOL that was a rhetoric question, that I knew you wouldn't be able to answer, because to do so you would have to contradict your argument. Thanks for playing…
You're not even smart enough to see the huge hole I'm helping you dig for yourself. I just handed you a JCB…



2 - Because it fell 500-1000 feet and gained a lot of kinetic energy along the way


What did? The pieces of debris, weighing tons were just tossed up by a gravity fed collapse to land 600ft away, and cause other steel columns to completely fail?


"loses" is a relative term.


You are a relative term...


This doesn't mean that the "winning" object will not suffer significant damage.


You are not claiming 'significant damage', you are claiming complete failure, HUGE difference. You want an EXTREME outcome from sit X, I am just looking at what would be physically possible in the real world.


...and the collision still damages both cars...even if one is made of aluminum and the other made of steel. ;-)


LOL again not the point, you are arguing for complete destruction of BOTH objects. I am just arguing for what are normaly known physical reactions in colliding bodies. I have nothing to prove because this is experienced everyday of your life.
If you can't piece it together then I can't help you.

Have you ever seen a crash between an 18 wheeler and a small two seater car?
Have you ever seen a crash between an 18 wheeler and a small two seater car, where the car completely destroyed the truck?

Seriously?

[edit on 1/26/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Right...in this case, the building wins, but not without damage.


Why have I never heard my physics professors saying one colliding object "wins"? You just model the behavior. Probably, bolts would fail. That would be my personal prediction, but the whole point of using numbers in the first place is to eliminate guessing and opinions. Just playing Devil's advocate here, because your argument really does have this hole.


Nope...just trying to put the numbers in perspective. It would take thousands of sticks of dynamite to match the energy that those planes had at impact....that's gonna do some serious damage.


Dynamite doesn't even detonate at a high enough velocity to cut steel at all according to information someone just posted for you in your other thread, and it's considering a "lifting" explosive. So dynamite is automatically out of the question. C4 is a little better and even that is really common, "dumb" technology.

So the point is, you can have the energy, but you don't know what the energy is doing. You just have a pointless number. What would happen when applied to the WTC steel? You would actually have to draw out some pretty elaborate diagrams, and you would be much better off to model it on a computer. You would have elastic behavior and stresses would probably be applied to connections that they weren't able to support, so they just snapped at the bolts. No cutting through steel even required really. Or at least that's what I would expect, I could be wrong.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

1-Actually, you misspoke and you were the one called out.

2-Did you look at any of the other 9/11 truth websites like Scholars

3-or Patriots?


Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Actually, here you go, with video, a steel structure that collapsed after fire.



1-did I, or did I not ask for you to provide your link to hundreds of se's. You've avoided it so far.

2- are the scholars all se's? No?

3- patriots actually have done some debunking of CT's, so I'm not sure what your point is by mentioning them.

4- what this crap? I never posted that.


So what about the challenge? Aren't you going to compare what your fellow professionals have gotten published? I'd hazard a guess here and say that the list of published folks is greater than your list of se's - of which 1 or 2 of those on ae911troof claim that nukes were used.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

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

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



1- are you talking about looking for explosive residues? It's been covered - no 140db explosions.

2- the towers? there was pre-existing photos and reports of them missing insulation on the trusses and the core columns. Or did you mean 7? They didn't talk much about the insulation in 7... they made recs on the connections, which were modelled.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Probably, bolts would fail.



This is correct, and what in fact happened to nearly all the ext columns.

Which of course means that all the blather about from lyco about shearing the steel is an exercise that isn't needed.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
ae911troof

And this is what debunkers lower themselves down to when the truth starts to hurt. Until you can show a little more maturity, professionalism and decorum, you'll be on ignore. Your post has also been reported.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


hmm you seem to think that the building couldnt hold it self up??

ok for simplicity lets say this lets say all of this fire and holes mattered

the only thing that would have happened which anok has been trying to say the entire time which some keep ignoring big time is

even so the upper floors where much much lighter then the lower stronger floors hence tapering of the weight of the material,but increasing the hardness of the material

the floors below the impact didnt surcome to any fires or impact damage( even people who made from the impact zone to ground level and lived said it looked like nothing had happend on floors below the impact zone)rember the building was built to hold itself up

even if the floors from the impact zone and above collapsed they would not have enough energy to cause a global collapse with out some other source of energy,
they simply would have slowed down and eventually ran out of momentum the further down they went like i said and anok has been trying to explain to people they where built to hold up the upper floors and resist compression

and speaking of compression the builds compressing force also adds to the extra difficulty in slicing through the columns absorbed even more of the energy needed the whole building was under compression

all the floors below the damage where still structurally sound people keep forgetting just how massive the building actualy where TV did them no justice

remember each floor was an acre (42,000 square feet) over 8 million square feet in all THATS huge people 1 foot ball field is what each floor area was ,

imagine heating and cooling the building just WOW!!! the energy needed

the plane was like poking a hole in a screen there would be a hole but the screen mesh around the hole would not colapse

so what weakend the concrete ,beams, and such below the impact site to cause them to fail??

heat transfer??



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


IOW, contrary to your positive claim, you're unable to link to "hundreds" of se's, and are embarassed that one of your members that appears to have the chops to have an opinion on structural issues, also claims that nukes were used.

Also, it's obvious you're embarassed by the fact that the TM has been unable to get any of their junk published in a respectable, peer reviewed journal, and don't want to examine why that is.....

Cool with me. Live in denial of the fact that the vaaaaaaaast majority of se's - your peers - don't support TM CT's.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
What people are forgetting it that it was the combined effects of the
impact and resulting fires which caused the collapse

It's not that people are forgetting, it's just that science, physics and experience throughout history proves your theory wrong.

It doesn't matter if you say fires alone made the buildings completely collapse. It doesn't matter if you say the plane impacts alone made the buildings completely collapse. It doesn't matter if you say that the fires and impacts made the buildings collapse. Never has a steel-structured highrise completely collapsed due to fire, and demo companies don't destroy only a few floors in the middle to make buildings completely collapse.

Since fire has never achieved what only controlled demo's do, and since demo companies wire a whole building and not a few floors in the middle, then the towers couldn't have collapsed any other way and you will never find the proof to show otherwise because it doesn't exist.

Seymore posted a video on the last page that shows what fire-induced collapses really look like. The whole top half of the building collapsed onto the bottom half, but guess what? The bottom half didn't collapse and the rest of the building around it didn't collapse either.

Steel-structured highrises will not completely collapse without explosives and I'm still waiting for someone to show evidence to the contrary.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


The craziest thing is....they did testing for 9/11





link

Materials scientist Erik Offerman from our department explained in a seminar what happens to construction steel during a fire and examined how a fire results in the loss of strength of steel at high temperatures. He gave insight in the mechanical properties of steel at elevated temperatures compared to the properties at room temperature. A novel European supermicroscope makes it possible to have a look inside steel and see live how the structure of steel deteriorates during a fire. The seminar also made clear that future research is important to improve the fire-resistance of steel.



It is a pretty good article. I have read it before. I thought the building collapse was a good video though. No explosives and collapsed like 7 did.



posted on Jan, 26 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Seymore posted a video on the last page



Well, now I understand why Bonez doesn't get it.

I never posted that video. I even told him.

But somehow, this hasn't penetrated.

Just like the fact that the vaaaast majority of his supposed peers - se's - don't agree with the TM's CTz.

This has no effect on him either.....



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join