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: 25
2
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.




posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
thanks for the waking up part

but i will never be able to learn your guys physics or thermodynamics its way way to hard to comprehend maybe one day when i get to go to magic land i will be able to comprehend your guys hearsay ,logic , physics and thermodynamics.

but until then ill stick with real world physics and thermodynamics
from real scientist,physicist,Thermodynamists,firemen ,

i can truly grasp that way way easier

but thanks man



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
what about 6 it states its damage and fire where more sever and it didnt colapse so what about it ??

not until they blew it during clean up


911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 28-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
WTC 6 was pulled down after it was damaged by debris from the north tower I believe. If the holes were created by explosives the government sure did a bang up job to not finish the job but hey, that is the going theory here anyway...



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by lycopersicum
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


as far as building 5 height dosnt matter acording to you


I never said that height doesn't matter.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
steel is steel the damage was more severe then building 7 and the fire was bigger and more wide spread was it not??

should it have not collapsed just like WTC7


No, because there were many other differences.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
according to you the steel should have still weakened just like you said WTC7 correct or no?? a steel strycture is a steel structure when it comes to fire according to you

shouldnt there have been some kind of collapse?


The steel definitely would have weakened. Whether there would be a collapse or not depends on a multitude of other factors.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
or are you saying it was built better then WTC7??


It was built *differently* than WTC7.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
and explain to me the height thing and how it effects a collapse


In general, the shorter a building is, the bigger, thicker, and heavier the support structure can be. If you want to build a building much taller, changes in the design have to be made so that the tower can support the weight above.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
this building was way taller and the fires burned way longer

whatreallyhappened.com...

so how dose height matter i mean really??


Height does matter..but it's just one variable and there are many others.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
another question if some one showed you WTC 7 WTC 1 WTC 2 on video for the first time collapsing ( i mean in most of the videos as all the building collapsed you cant see the fires right) so what dose it look like to you if you cant see the fires?

poor construction ??


WTC1 and 2 look like they collapsed from impact & fire damage. If I didn't know anything about WTC7 and just saw that video, I would think it was a CD too.....but I've done my research on it so I know better now.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
and give me a break about the power station WTC7 was built better


"Better" is a relative term. It was built differently...and the design of being over that power station made it much different than WTC5.






Originally posted by lycopersicum
and with stronger and thicker steel and really was stronger after they renovated it as a safe haven for official in case of a disaster and such


Source your claim that WTC7 was built with thicker steel than wtc5.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
and you didnt say what you might think the loud booms where ??


I don't know what they were...and neither do you.


Originally posted by lycopersicum
you do amaze me with your wisdom and ideology i learn every conversation and argument you have with anyone about 9/11 , i learn very much how blind some people can be ,its like the blind leading the blind all of you guys


I'm not blind to the facts.
Fact: WTC5 was a very different building than WTC7
Fact: WTC5 performed differently than WTC7

Why do you expect 2 completely different buildings to react in exactly the same way?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   


Originally posted by adam_zapple
as far as building 5 height dosnt matter acording to you


I never said that height doesn't matter.


I'll say it: height doesn't matter.

It's called redundancy, and a factor of safety. The heavier the building, the bigger the columns and the more they are built to carry. Everything equals out. Smaller buildings have less reserve capacity, larger buildings have proportionately more.

In other words, the "logic" that 'big building = easier to knock down', is generally false. Everything is proportional, and this is actually required by legal codes.



Originally posted by lycopersicum
should it have not collapsed just like WTC7


No, because there were many other differences.


You don't know what you're talking about. The only big difference is that WTC7 was demolished, and WTC4, 5, and 6 were not (at least not right away).

WTC5 was smaller, had smaller column cross-sections (easier to heat more quickly!), was more fully engulfed than WTC7 and burned for about just as long if not longer, and was more heavily impacted by debris (from BOTH buildings!).

On all the points that would make any difference, WTC5 must seem like superman compared to WTC7, yet it's actually the norm for steel framed fires, and WTC1, 2, and especially 7 are the exceptions. WTC7's final report was delayed for years and now that it's released you can't tell me any more information now than you could before, and NIST's director is STILL wondering why they can't reproduce WTC7's free-fall acceleration with their models.


Source your claim that WTC7 was built with thicker steel than wtc5.


It's actually (aside from common sense) in the FEMA report, where they show cross-sections of the structure in WTC5, etc.

Here is a typical column from WTC5:








WTC7 under construction:





I don't know what kind of an idiot engineer you think would build WTC5 with columns as massive as WTC7's. Do you know how much extra and unnecessary dead loading that would create?



Fact: WTC5 was a very different building than WTC7
Fact: WTC5 performed differently than WTC7

Why do you expect 2 completely different buildings to react in exactly the same way?


One free-fell, meaning it didn't even use its own potential energy as it "collapsed." The other did not collapse at all, despite suffering worse damage and being smaller framed. This isn't rocket science. They don't have to "react in exactly the same way," they just have to behave in a way that makes sense. "Collapsing" while accelerating at free-fall does not make sense.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Originally posted by adam_zapple
as far as building 5 height dosnt matter acording to you


I never said that height doesn't matter.


I'll say it: height doesn't matter.

It's called redundancy, and a factor of safety. The heavier the building, the bigger the columns and the more they are built to carry.


More total, yes, but smaller buildings can be built to support more weight per square foot, since the support structure is able to weigh more.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Everything equals out. Smaller buildings have less reserve capacity, larger buildings have proportionately more.


Height still is a factor, no matter how the reserve capacity "equals out".


Originally posted by bsbray11
In other words, the "logic" that 'big building = easier to knock down', is generally false. Everything is proportional, and this is actually required by legal codes.


I didn't say it would be "easier to knock down", my point is that it's a variable that can cause a different result.


Originally posted by bsbray11


Originally posted by lycopersicum
should it have not collapsed just like WTC7


No, because there were many other differences.


You don't know what you're talking about. The only big difference is that WTC7 was demolished, and WTC4, 5, and 6 were not (at least not right away).

WTC5 was smaller, had smaller column cross-sections (easier to heat more quickly!), was more fully engulfed than WTC7 and burned for about just as long if not longer, and was more heavily impacted by debris (from BOTH buildings!).


Design, height, construction, etc were all different.


Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't know what kind of an idiot engineer you think would build WTC5 with columns as massive as WTC7's. Do you know how much extra and unnecessary dead loading that would create?


The claim was was not specific to columns...it said "thicker steel". Certainly some of the columns would have been thicker, but not all of the steel would be or would have to be thicker.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Fact: WTC5 was a very different building than WTC7
Fact: WTC5 performed differently than WTC7

Why do you expect 2 completely different buildings to react in exactly the same way?


One free-fell, meaning it didn't even use its own potential energy as it "collapsed."


It used its own gravitational potential energy.


Originally posted by bsbray11
The other did not collapse at all, despite suffering worse damage and being smaller framed. This isn't rocket science. They don't have to "react in exactly the same way," they just have to behave in a way that makes sense.


In a way that makes sense to you, is what you mean.


Originally posted by bsbray11
"Collapsing" while accelerating at free-fall does not make sense.


WTC7 did not collapse at free-fall speed.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple
More total, yes, but smaller buildings can be built to support more weight per square foot, since the support structure is able to weigh more.



Factor of safety (FoS) can mean either the fraction of structural capability over that required, or a multiplier applied to the maximum expected load (force, torque, bending moment or a combination) to which a component or assembly will be subjected. The two senses of the term are completely different in that the first is a measure of the reliability of a particular design, while the second is a requirement imposed by law, standard, specification, contract or custom.


en.wikipedia.org...

If they expect greater loading per square foot, the built-in redundancy has to accommodate it.


Height still is a factor, no matter how the reserve capacity "equals out".


In physics/engineering terms, can you tell me exactly why?



Design, height, construction, etc were all different.


Design and construction are redundant, and we are already arguing about what height means as far as a building's ability to crush itself into the ground.

They were both made of steel, "steel-framed." They both used columns, trusses, etc. Very typical and conventional stuff. The building materials were the same, had the same strengths, etc. They were just shaped differently. If that's of any significance, then you should explain how, besides that they're just different. So were the colors on their exterior faces. Big deal. Tell me why it would matter to an engineer, that one shape prevents any collapse at all while the other somehow necessitates a symmetrical free-fall.


The claim was was not specific to columns...it said "thicker steel". Certainly some of the columns would have been thicker, but not all of the steel would be or would have to be thicker.


The columns in general were thicker and larger in WTC7. They would also require much more heat and time to heat to any critical temperature than WTC5's columns. Common sense, because the WTC7 was built bigger.




One free-fell, meaning it didn't even use its own potential energy as it "collapsed."


It used its own gravitational potential energy.


It fell at free-fall. That means no, it did not. It fell at free-fall in a vacuum, even. So even when you think you've found a deviation between WTC7's acceleration and free-fall, calculate a figure for drag and it disappears. Everything, from the steel structure to the air inside the building, was blown out of the way so the top could free-fall progressively to the ground, losing no kinetic energy to destroying the building.


In a way that makes sense to you, is what you mean.


I am trying to see what sense you think you are seeing, but I'm still just seeing a 47-story steel building free-falling and losing no KE.



WTC7 did not collapse at free-fall speed.


Which WTC7 are you looking at? I can link you to pages that show you how to measure the acceleration yourself. Even NIST now admits WTC7 accelerated at free-fall. You really don't have any room to argue about it anymore.

Don't bring up the Penthouse, either, because the fallacy there is that you are averaging in a lot of time where the roof line is not even moving. If you have ever taken a physics class, you are looking for instantaneous values. That's what NIST took, and that's what I have personally measured. When the roof line begins to move, that's when the global collapse began. And that's when the free-fall acceleration began, and it was free-fall.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by lycopersicum

but until then ill stick with real world physics and thermodynamics
from real scientist,physicist,Thermodynamists,firemen ,



This is great!

Manuel Garcia a native New Yorker who works as a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.

The Thermodynamocs of 9/11:

www.counterpunch.org...

ARUP:

www.arup.com...

The Royal Society of Scotland:

www.royalsoced.org.uk...


I have more, and hmmmm, they all say that collapse due to fire and impacts, or from fire alone "works".

So can you refute these professional, published scientists, physicists, and engineers with your own special knowledge of thermodynamics that you learned from Wiki?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Which WTC7 are you looking at? I can link you to pages that show you how to measure the acceleration yourself. Even NIST now admits WTC7 accelerated at free-fall. You really don't have any room to argue about it anymore.



Hilarious - you can't trust NIST, unless it supports CD, then they are beyond reproach.

Actually, while NIST says it fell at gravitational acceleration, which of course means freefall, their own numbers indicate "near" freefall.

Then there is the issue of how accurate the video is, their timing, etc. Dr Greening has done a study of this, and gets 9.2 m/s^2, +/- .6.

All this from moving the start time by .1 second.

What's even funnier - NIST is " a shill for the NWO/insert the evil group of your choice here" , "they" pulled off the biggest "inside job" of all time, and yet, "they" allow NIST to admit to this...



Only the true bs artist could believe this - oh wait, what's this? bs....bray. Ok then, that explains it.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

When the roof line begins to move, that's when the global collapse began. And that's when the free-fall acceleration began, and it was free-fall.



Even this is wrong.

NIST says the near freefall acceleration began over a second AFTER initiation.

Even Chandler doesn't claim that the "freefall" began as soon as the roof line moves.....



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Thanks for the link to nothing.

That didn't answer any of my questions. Also, I found this interesting:


Because the time period for this assignment was limited and much of the information was either inaccessible or unverifiable, the students had to base some of their work on hypotheses.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Height still is a factor, no matter how the reserve capacity "equals out".


In physics/engineering terms, can you tell me exactly why?


It's another way in which they are different, therefore another factor which will affect how they react to an input.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Design, height, construction, etc were all different.


Design and construction are redundant, and we are already arguing about what height means as far as a building's ability to crush itself into the ground.

They were both made of steel, "steel-framed." They both used columns, trusses, etc. Very typical and conventional stuff. The building materials were the same, had the same strengths, etc. They were just shaped differently. If that's of any significance, then you should explain how, besides that they're just different. So were the colors on their exterior faces. Big deal. Tell me why it would matter to an engineer, that one shape prevents any collapse at all while the other somehow necessitates a symmetrical free-fall.


The buildings had different support structures. I already brought up the truss system employed in WTC7 which was a major difference.


Originally posted by bsbray11

The claim was was not specific to columns...it said "thicker steel". Certainly some of the columns would have been thicker, but not all of the steel would be or would have to be thicker.


The columns in general were thicker and larger in WTC7. They would also require much more heat and time to heat to any critical temperature than WTC5's columns. Common sense, because the WTC7 was built bigger.


The columns in WTC also had much more weight bearing down on them than the columns in WTC5.


Originally posted by bsbray11


One free-fell, meaning it didn't even use its own potential energy as it "collapsed."


It used its own gravitational potential energy.


It fell at free-fall. That means no, it did not.


Whether you believe it did or not, as it fell, its gravitational potential energy was converted to kinetic energy.


Originally posted by bsbray11 It fell at free-fall in a vacuum, even.


Completely false.


Originally posted by bsbray11So even when you think you've found a deviation between WTC7's acceleration and free-fall, calculate a figure for drag and it disappears. Everything, from the steel structure to the air inside the building, was blown out of the way so the top could free-fall progressively to the ground, losing no kinetic energy to destroying the building.



Originally posted by bsbray11

In a way that makes sense to you, is what you mean.


I am trying to see what sense you think you are seeing, but I'm still just seeing a 47-story steel building free-falling and losing no KE.


Losing no KE?

How much KE did the building have prior to collapse?
How much KE did the building have halfway through the collapse?
How much KE did the building have after it collapsed?


Originally posted by bsbray11

WTC7 did not collapse at free-fall speed.


Which WTC7 are you looking at? I can link you to pages that show you how to measure the acceleration yourself. Even NIST now admits WTC7 accelerated at free-fall.


NIST states:

NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions.

www.nist.gov...


Originally posted by bsbray11
Don't bring up the Penthouse, either, because the fallacy there is that you are averaging in a lot of time where the roof line is not even moving. If you have ever taken a physics class, you are looking for instantaneous values. That's what NIST took, and that's what I have personally measured. When the roof line begins to move, that's when the global collapse began. And that's when the free-fall acceleration began, and it was free-fall.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by bsbray11]


See NIST quote above and here:



Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


so is everyone on this site wrong ??
www.physics911.net...


hmm jury is still out on this guys motives so far i havent heard or read anything good about him , but i do not know him so i cant pass judgment

The Thermodynamocs of 9/11:

www.counterpunch.org...

The Royal Society of Scotland:
Sir David Clive Wilson

i question anyone who is affiliated with
rockefeller
or
receive money from them

and he is affiliated to both

as is Ove Arup

www.arup.com...

they all have received funding

but thanks for posting



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Sorry, I was looking back at my browsing history and posted the wrong link.. Here it is...
Link



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.


No foul....



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by bsbray11
In physics/engineering terms, can you tell me exactly why?


It's another way in which they are different, therefore another factor which will affect how they react to an input.


So in other words, no.


The columns in WTC also had much more weight bearing down on them than the columns in WTC5.


This goes back to the safety factor thing but it's becoming increasingly obvious that you are either not reading or not comprehending the words I am typing.


Losing no KE?


Not until it hit the ground, no. That's why it fell at free-fall. Have you ever taken physics?


NIST states:


Start reading this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

NIST's director admits there that WTC7 free-fell and that their models could not reproduce that result, and that they cannot explain it.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by bsbray11
In physics/engineering terms, can you tell me exactly why?


It's another way in which they are different, therefore another factor which will affect how they react to an input.


So in other words, no.


Google Square-Cube law for more on that.

The same reason an ant can support 10x its own weight without being crushed but a larger animal like an elephant cannot. Size matters because not everything scales the same way.


Originally posted by bsbray11

The columns in WTC also had much more weight bearing down on them than the columns in WTC5.


This goes back to the safety factor thing but it's becoming increasingly obvious that you are either not reading or not comprehending the words I am typing.


what was the safety factor for a beam in WTC7 vs the safety factor for a beam in WTC5?


Originally posted by bsbray11

Losing no KE?


Not until it hit the ground, no. That's why it fell at free-fall.


The collapse was 40% SLOWER than free fall. Did you miss that?


Originally posted by bsbray11
Have you ever taken physics?


A in college physics, actually. How about you?


NIST states:


Start reading this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

NIST's director admits there that WTC7 free-fell and that their models could not reproduce that result, and that they cannot explain it.

It free-fell for only PART of the collapse.


Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity



[edit on 29-1-2009 by adam_zapple]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by lycopersicum

so is everyone on this site wrong ??
www.physics911.net...



How can anyone tell?

The links I gave you are published - in professional and respected industry journals - peer reviewed papers that include calculations that back up their conclusions. Journals I might add, that real SE's read and have on their coffee table at home.

After browsing through your link some, I can't find any peer reviewed, published papers at all. Neither can I find any credentials for the guys writing them.

So will you, or will you not listen to REAL, PUBLISHED PAPERS from physicists, structural engineers, and fire engineers?

Or will you just dismiss them out of hand?

If you choose to dismiss them out of hand, even though they contain the calcs necessary for you or others to check out whether or not they're accurate, then why would anyone trust YOUR sources, when they contain no calcs at all?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 



sorry this is the link i was trying to post dont know why that other one came up i was looking at it but this is what i wanted to post sorry agin

physics911.net...

as far as the other articles you posted i stated why anything affiliated with rockerfellers i chose not to trust in any way shape or form

as i truly believe they have an underlying conection to 9/11 itself

so sorry post any other info from sources that have no affiliation to that family and i will read them

add

i just to let you know i am not a no planer either , i just dont believe they where comercial jets

i tend to agree with this man Colonel-Donn-de-Grand pre

www.scribd.com...

thanks agin



[edit on 29-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


You have an 'A' in college physics? Which college physics? Which college?
How far did you go? Physics 101?

Please explain what is wrong with this statement...

'Please conserve energy'.




top topics



 
2
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join