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 _BoneZ_
Looks like they were able to in WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. You do know that most, if not all of the explosives required to bring the towers down would have been in the cores. The core was not visible to the occupants and therefore cancels your logic.
Even with your logic, it still doesn't explain away the plumes that have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions.
Your logic doesn't explain away the explosions heard in "9/11 Eyewitness" that are also corroborated by first responders. Your logic doesn't explain away the first responders' testimony to seeing flashes and explosions going up, down and around the towers in the lower levels and middle levels, mimicking what we normally see in controlled demolitions.
Your logic also doesn't explain away the survivors and by-standers that heard the "boom, boom, boom" detonations as both towers were being brought down.
Originally posted by Badgered1
Why not? Worked for 911.
Who told people what to believe and what evidence is there that the crime scenes were 'scrubbed'?
Originally posted by exponent
Yes, they exert a force of their mass * g on the ground, which exerts an identical force upwards, leading to a total acceleration of 0.
No, it simply means that they were exerting a force of mg on the structures below them, which were resisting with forces of 1/3g and 1/4g respectively [edit - this should be better phrased, they were exerting a force of 1/3mg upwards, where m is the mass of the upper section. I have explained this poorly], leading to an acceleration of 2/3 or 3/4g, 6.5m/s/s and 7.4m/s/s respectively.
These figures come from observations of the actual rate of descent, from the PhysOrg forum. I don't have the link to hand but it should be easily searchable.
Originally posted by _BoneZ_
In otherwords, you won't see any professional 9/11 truth research organization or website supporting such outrageous things such as holograms.
Originally posted by dariousg
This would be true if the mass above was still solid. It wasn't. It was pulverized.
So, what everyone supporting the OS is saying is that this pulverized material maintained and GAINED momentum to also pulverize the undamaged floors below. Okay, I see now. Thanks for opening my eyes finally! *dripping heavily with sarcasm*
Originally posted by Badgered1
So could we please have some of the steel beams - the ones that we were all told failed due to heat from kerosene - to analyze?
Please?
Can we? Just a few...
Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
First of all, the acceleration of the building standing on the ground has the "total acceleration of 0" does not mean they are experiencing 0g. It's two totally different things. They are still experiencing 1g with an acceleration of 0. Remember that, 1g.
Now this, is why i think you're an bumbling misinforming idiot. My question had nothing to do with what the acceleration for the building actually was. That's totally irrelevant to me as we can all watch the video of the "collapses" and come up with those numbers easily without the help of a fake scientist such as yourself. We merely need to use time intervals with the video to determine velocities to determine acceleration.
You're saying 2/3 or 3/4 the force of 1g was the reason it brought the buildings down, as well as all the floors beneath the impact zone that WERE NOT DAMAGED BY FIRE?? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
What CAUSED THE FLOORS that weren't damaged by fires at all to fall at those speeds? STOP IGNORING THE QUESTION. You not being able to answer it further illustrates the need for an ACTUAL UNBIASED INVESTIGATION.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
First of all, the acceleration of the building standing on the ground has the "total acceleration of 0" does not mean they are experiencing 0g. It's two totally different things. They are still experiencing 1g with an acceleration of 0. Remember that, 1g.
Yes, exactly right.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
Now this, is why i think you're an bumbling misinforming idiot. My question had nothing to do with what the acceleration for the building actually was. That's totally irrelevant to me as we can all watch the video of the "collapses" and come up with those numbers easily without the help of a fake scientist such as yourself. We merely need to use time intervals with the video to determine velocities to determine acceleration.
Perhaps I misunderstood your question, if so I apologise.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
You're saying 2/3 or 3/4 the force of 1g was the reason it brought the buildings down, as well as all the floors beneath the impact zone that WERE NOT DAMAGED BY FIRE?? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
No i'm saying that that is the force remaining after the amount the building resisted collapse has been removed.
Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
What CAUSED THE FLOORS that weren't damaged by fires at all to fall at those speeds? STOP IGNORING THE QUESTION. You not being able to answer it further illustrates the need for an ACTUAL UNBIASED INVESTIGATION.
Originally posted by exponent
I want to be extra careful with my answer here, I think that you are asking how, after the collapse started, it progressed downwards.
The simple answer is that the amount of force exerted by the upper section of either tower falling even a single floor massively exceeds the load carrying capacity of the next floor down. In reality of course the tops of both towers rotated, resulting in most columns being misaligned and the floors being the primary structural element. The floors were very thin, 4" of concrete, and designed to handle only local live loads, with very little dead load.
What caused the floors below to fall at those speeds? Momentum, caused by the upper section being accelerated due to gravity, and converting potential energy into kinetic energy.
Now, if you are asking what started the collapses, please post and let me know, but the answer to that in depth is in the NIST report.
Likewise untrue. Controlled demolitions are TIMED IN SEQUENCE, specifically to knock out all the supporting structure in one fell swoop. The explosions heard during 9/11 were RANDOM, going off in no perceivable order. It's the whole reason I can definitively say these weren't controlled demos.
Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
Is it just me or is it that every time someone asks a valid question that you cannot prove with your pseudo-science, you rip the question to shreds and stray from the direction of the original question so as to confuse and dilute the substance within the actual question?
Please, you're more than welcome to post your calculations on how you came up with this magical number.
Massively exceeds? How stupid can you really be? I mean COME ON. I state that the standing structure uses 10-15% of the total load bearing capacity. You rebutted that with your assumption (with no proof that it's actually true, shows all the signs of being completely false) that the building uses "50%" of it's load bearing capacity.
For the building to fall (at near free fall speeds mind you) after all this time (30years+) because an upper section floor that lost integrity due to fire is just flat out implausible.
Not to mention that skyscrapers are built with extreme redundancy, a concept that is not made up like your statements but have an actual basis and foundation in PHYSICS and SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. For you to say they'd build a 110 story skyscraper using 50% of its load bearing capacity is an outrageous lie.
2. In reality of course the tops of both towers rotated, resulting in most columns being misaligned and the floors being the primary structural element
Any research or scientific evidence to back any of these wild claims up?
3. designed to handle only local live loads, with very little dead load.
I would like to see your degree in architecture for you to make a wild claim such as this, with the obviously tiny mental faculties you possess.
Don't point me to the very NIST report that we know to be bogus, as evidence. Since the NIST report ignores the laws of physics as much as you do. The very NIST report that has us demanding a real investigation.
Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
GoodOlDave, it's nice to see you're still hanging around while ignoring my posts that were directed at you, your credibility, and your illogical reasoning. Don't forget, the posts you made yesterday might have been made yesterday, but they're still here for the world to see today. And the world thinks you're an idiot, minus the rest of you misinforming fascist thought police.
Originally posted by jprophet420
You're right, its not like there were bombs in the basement first and then explosions higher up in the building getting lower as it came down.
Its not like I saw all that happen live on the internet in real time on msnbc.com
its not like you can look it up on news archives and see it for yourself.
Its not like you can google it.
its not like you can youtube it.
No calculation needed, it is the observed value determined by a panel of truthers and non truthers from the PhysOrg forums.
NIST calculated the demand to capacity ratios of the core columns in the WTC before impact, and found values ranging from between 30% to 60%. Given these values, 40-45% would be more accurate than the 50% I said before. I believe the combined required factors of the NY building code came to between 2-2.5x, and 30-50% would satisfy this.
There is not a huge amount of information on the total weight of the structures as occupied, and so don't expect these to be completely accurate, but it certainly was nowhere near 10-15% and I would challenge you to support these figures.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Originally posted by jprophet420
You're right, its not like there were bombs in the basement first and then explosions higher up in the building getting lower as it came down.
Its not like I saw all that happen live on the internet in real time on msnbc.com
its not like you can look it up on news archives and see it for yourself.
Its not like you can google it.
its not like you can youtube it.
No, you DIDN'T see this happen this way in real time, nor can you can youtube it or even google it to see it happen this way. Every video in existence specifically shows the initial structural failure was at the point of impact of the aircraft, which then cascaded down sequentually floor by floor. This is how the towers collapsed according to every piece of evidence available and this cannot be refuted.
Work this fact into your conspiracy stories as you see fit.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So in the end, I'm an idiot and your conspiracy stories are rubbish. I can live with that.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
They definitely would be visible to the engineers, inspectors, custodians, etc whose job it was to maintain the building, check for corrosion, water damage, metal fatigue, etc etc etc.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The plumes were clouds of air and dust being pushed out of the building like a bellows as the structure was collapsing.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The explosions heard during 9/11 were RANDOM, going off in no perceivable order. It's the whole reason I can definitively say these weren't controlled demos.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
These explosions almost certainly had to be these flammable objects going BOOM in random order, as the fires reached them in turn.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The entire buildings were not only going BOOM BOOM BOOM as they were falling, the wreckage was going BOOM BOOM BOOM as it hit the ground and/or nearby buildings.
Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
There you go again showing the very NIST report, that we claim is incomplete and misleading, as evidence.
Are you implying that since they are a "panel of truthers and non-truthers" and thus, we should believe what you say? Example #2398 of your illogical thought patterns.
Haha, that image you linked clearly states in the caption MAXIMUM demand-to-capacity ratio for axial force which means in this case, absolutely nothing. I don't know what your boss told u but, MAXIMUM DEMAND-TO-CAPACITY is NOT THE SAME THING AS ACTUAL DEMAND-TO-CAPACITY RATIO. Its absolutely backed through engineering and science that even if the demand-to-capacity ratio did hit their safe 'maximums' the building would not have failed the way they did.
Which is why we keep saying, open a new and unbiased investigation and if you don't agree with it, i guess you should sit there and be happy by yourself and not meddle with our complaints about the lies that are the NIST and 9/11 Commission report. I mean, seriously, why can't you just be happy? There are no signs of a new investigation happening, so why do you take it upon yourself to attack my private investigation? Are you just a psychopath that likes to deny people their right to think freely?
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by whateverYOUsayman
There you go again showing the very NIST report, that we claim is incomplete and misleading, as evidence.
Yes, because it is a report by experts, with more information about the building than anyone else. Unless you have some evidence you're wrong I could just dismiss all conspiracy theories with the same method.
Can you name a single "complete" alternate theory? Becuase if so then they're all incomplete and therefore all inadmissible apparently.