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.

 

Simulation shows why World Trade Center towers fell: it's the heat

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by jprophet420
 


In the world of physics of structures a buildings own weight can pull it down. Especially when it's compromised.


Please can you give us some real life examples from your world of physics of structures of any steel framed, reinforced concrete buildings anywhere in the world that has totally collapsed into its own footprint at near free fall of gravity speed due to fire or being hit by a bomb, aircraft or a piece of debris from an adjacent building.


PEACE,
RK




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
so national geografic is part of the cover up too ? is there anybody that was not involved or covering up?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I noticed that you did not address the point I made about the dark circle under the tail..

On a side note, an interesting phenomenon occured when we were exploring this and other 9/11 relates issues at a forum I used to actively participate in at letsroll911.org

The site admin run some reverse IP lookups to see who was visiting and reading, and while some were really nothing more than internet nodes, there were many more which could only be described as VIPs, like the US State Department, various Military installations, executive offices of manjor corporations including Boeing, Raytheon, and even the Executive Office of the POTUS, and the Vatican Holy See, world governments, the list goes on and on.

letsrollforums.com...

So if we were just confused about a glint of light, paintjob, and an exploding cannister of O2, why did it attract so much of that kind of attention?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


Wasn't free fall. That short video that supports that was specificly made that way to make it seem such. Which is why that is all you see on certain sites. And name me a situation in which any other building has been damaged by debris and was on fire that was of at least a simular design to that one.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by k3456789
 


Yes, they were enlisted to help bolster the OS in history. Are they not also owned in part by Murdock of Heart Publications?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


Sorry but that does not imply factuality. All that means for whatever reason certain agencies or perhaps even individuals without the agency as a whole's knowledge are reading.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
space cadet has very oficial theory as he would be official...



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


Wasn't free fall. That short video that supports that was specificly made that way to make it seem such. Which is why that is all you see on certain sites. And name me a situation in which any other building has been damaged by debris and was on fire that was of at least a simular design to that one.

Anyone can watch the videos bud and time them, then caculate distances involved.
Perhaps there may be a dispute about a second or two, because of an obscured view and plumes of dust, but all in all, they were within seconds of free fall, in the case of WTC7 near absolutely free fall, and in the case of the twin towers, maybe three or four seconds, but no more than that.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 

I just thought it was very interesting where all these visitors were coming from, and why, but you're right that it doesn't PROVE anything, only that people in those organizations were very interested to explore the information being presented there.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


Doesn't necessarily mean that. Who's to say there are no CTers that works for the government? Or it could be a bit of a joke to them, for any number of reasons, one possibility it being rather like a game I had when I was younger called "scare the mundanes" in which we did things to mess with people and freak them out they could be doing something simular, look at your response.


[edit on 21-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


Here is an explaination that I agree with, not the source of my view before you pull that tired old ad hom. I will not put it into my own words as I do not feel the need to as it would be taking too much time to put up information that will be foo fooed away anyway as I know where your schemata lie. Not that I particular expect you to believe my stated reasons either.


In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: www.911myths.com...

The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.

The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.

Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.


Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911

Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.

For more analysis of the building fall times, go to 911myths free fall page.

Please refer to Dr Frank Greening's paper for detailed calculations.

www.911myths.com...

Italian debunker shows us more than 16 seconds to collapse. That's almost twice free fall speed from the 110th floor.

SOURCE:www.debunking911.com...




[edit on 21-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Yeah sure, they must have all been either CT'ers or pranksters just trying to get a rise out of us when we checked their IP source.. that must be it.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


I did not say it was. Kindly stop putting words in my mouth. I was offering additional possibilities. Funny that you even misinterpreted one of the possibilities I was offering *was talking about a game I played as a kid, NOT saying it was exclusively a game played by kids. And the rest of the comments, well, I won't sink to ad hom like some so quickly and easily do.



[edit on 21-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
I guess my thing is, given the gravity of the issue, and the fact that a person can't reallyl fence sit on it, and the amount of evidence which suggests in no uncertain terms that the OS is full of holes and in many areas represents an outright fabrication - because of all that, my hackles really go up when I see otherwise rational and scientifically minded people going out of their way to support, uphold and stand guard for the OS.

It really makes you wonder where people are coming from - but I cannot judge and can't read minds, so to each his own.

But if the CT'ers are right, just imagine what you're backing, supporting, and defending...

And of course, that's a two way street in so far as if we were wrong, we're bearing some rather negative false witness against various factions or groups within the CIA, FBI, Military Industrial Establishment as well as the Executive Office of the POTUS, including Bush and Cheney.

But if it's what we CT'ers have concluded, then you are the devil's advocate, who supports, upholds and guard a lie of the most heinous variety.

So please try to consider all information from all sides as objectively as possible.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by k3456789
so national geografic is part of the cover up too ? is there anybody that was not involved or covering up?


Many OS believers like to whip out the ol' "everyone is on it huh?" card. National Geographic is a business, not a truth telling machine. Ask yourself who paid for the special and who owns the channel willing to air it? You would be amazed at how small that list of people "in on it" really becomes when you follow money.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Italian debunker shows us more than 16 seconds to collapse. That's almost twice free fall speed from the 110th floor.

SOURCE:www.debunking911.com...


[edit on 21-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

I don't know who this "Italian debunker" is, but I showed that here about 4 years ago.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


I really hate to be a stickler but I have a question. In that link, the math done to calculate fall speed results in a perfect curve showing that the buildings fell more slowly than free fall speed. How is it that these are such perfect arcs?

One of the reasons that people believe this looks like a CD is because the acceleration is so perfectly uniform. Slower than free fall speed or not, the buildings still should have offered some resistance at some point.

If we take this note about how there was resistance because the fall time is slower, then how is it that the resistance is so perfectly uniform?



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by Valhall
 


I really hate to be a stickler but I have a question. In that link, the math done to calculate fall speed results in a perfect curve showing that the buildings fell more slowly than free fall speed. How is it that these are such perfect arcs?

One of the reasons that people believe this looks like a CD is because the acceleration is so perfectly uniform. Slower than free fall speed or not, the buildings still should have offered some resistance at some point.

If we take this note about how there was resistance because the fall time is slower, then how is it that the resistance is so perfectly uniform?


Well, I don't buy that the fall was "so perfectly uniform". And 16 seconds is a considerable increase over freefall, so that points to substantial resistance. The guy doing the calculating is using an equation that will inherently produce a "perfectly uniform" curve. If you had measurements as the fall happened it would, on a macro level, track this curve. But on a micro level would have steps in it of resistance.

Point is though that it fell in about 16 seconds. My calculations were based on using two videos that capture the collapse from two different angles. The first showed the top collapse (approximately 500 feet I think it was) of the building. I took the time from that video and extrapolated and got between 16 and 18 seconds. Then the second video, taken at street level, showed the entired collapse. It was 16 seconds.

The freefall issue has been dead for several years as far as I'm concerned (and many others). They (WTC 1 and 2) didn't fall at freefall.

Now - WTC 7 - that's a different story.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I would love to discuss how exactly he determined that.


Sorry, it was Zheng in 2003.

I can't find any complete papers online that are free, so you'll have to visit your library to read it. I did....



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, I don't buy that the fall was "so perfectly uniform". And 16 seconds is a considerable increase over freefall, so that points to substantial resistance. The guy doing the calculating is using an equation that will inherently produce a "perfectly uniform" curve. If you had measurements as the fall happened it would, on a macro level, track this curve. But on a micro level would have steps in it of resistance.


No no no. You cannot tell me that you have the correct answer because you derived it with faulty data. You also cannot tell me that the resistance should have been so microscopic. Well, you can tell me those things, I just do not buy it. I know he used a curve equation, that was my point - he is using skewed data to prove a point. If he is using that curve to calculate that end time, then he has to use the curve trend. Not only do we have no idea how far off that curve it would have been, we have no reason to believe it would follow that trend; especially as rubble piles up creating even more obstacles to keep the fall from being uniform.


Point is though that it fell in about 16 seconds. My calculations were based on using two videos that capture the collapse from two different angles. The first showed the top collapse (approximately 500 feet I think it was) of the building. I took the time from that video and extrapolated and got between 16 and 18 seconds. Then the second video, taken at street level, showed the entired collapse. It was 16 seconds.

The freefall issue has been dead for several years as far as I'm concerned (and many others). They (WTC 1 and 2) didn't fall at freefall.

Now - WTC 7 - that's a different story.


I did not say it was falling at free fall speed, did I? I am talking about the perfect lack of resistance. You "extrapolated" a time, he used an equation. You both used those methods to find out what time something happened out of sight. He had no reason to assume the trend continued, especially since it should have been predictably erratic and without the endpoint, you have no data set from which to extrapolate.

I have to say that 16 seconds or not, the fall is uniform and perfect in its acceleration. Then again, you both came up with 16 by pretending to have all the information you would need to get that time.

More importantly, if this fall time is correct then does that not contradict NIST? If they were wrong about that, then all their work had to be a lie in order to reach the same conclusion.

So is the NIST report a lie or are you wrong?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join