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: 18
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Karilla
 


I've read through the 'blackfish' junk.

Poppycock.

The same sort of rubbish could be applied to ANY event, in ANY way that is biased towards a pre-determined 'conclusion'.

There is NOTHING in that 'study' to address the specifics of the construction mentods of those buildings. It's just more noise, designed to infect minds of the people who already "believe"......


You could be describing the original NIST report, except that stops at the moment of the collapse.

With regards to this report, you make a blanket statement rubbishing the physics involved. Can you be specific? If not, your opinion counts for nothing.




posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Karilla
 


blackfish.org = junk

They, themselves acknowledge that their 'analysis' is based on the video evidence...ONLY...
___________________________________________________________
redact and edit snarky comment.....

[edit on 23 September 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


not true. the landmark tower took longer than wtc7, and it was thirty storeys. it took about the 3/4 the time of the two 110 storey towers. (they fell at about two thirds G, so, about twelve seconds). the landmark takes about 9, and it was 30 storeys, 380 feet tall.



the demolitions that are actually done without explosives, using the crush up/crush down "verinage" method, show a easily observable deceleration as the buildings descends. also, it only works on concrete buildings.




sometimes, buildings have other ideas, so collapse isn't always "inevitable" once initiated.






[edit on 23-9-2009 by billybob]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Don't you see?

You're using examples of planned CD, in dissimilar buildings, and arguing that THEY fell slower than the WTC Towers, while AT THE SAME TIME alleging that the WTC Towers were destroyed by CD??


That, in my book, is called a cognitive disconnect.

But, it's better to ignore logic, and embrace some sort of vague "conspiracy theory" that still lacks a cohesive message.

I mean, when an "architect" uses cardboard boxes to "prove" his demolition theory, what fault could anyone possibly find in that??

Yeah....the main guy for "architects and engineers for truth" - or whatever their name is....THAT guy. EITHER you are on his side, or not. Pick a side.....

...or, make up your own side. Because that seems to be the case of the 9/11 "conspiracy" crowd....



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
i notice you've avoided discussing the unlikely "coincidence" of a constant velocity.

anyway, the truth doesn't forget.

when a building is preweakened and they are trying to crush it with itself, they want to get the building moving as quickly as possible to max the KE they can milk out of the PE. so, you would expect demolitions, especially ones with explosives, to be at near freefall, but they are not.
and the reason is, as "we" have been saying forever, is conservation of momentum. even if everything goes into freefall, it still collides with itself and momentum and energy are transferred back and forth at the "crush front", the inevitable zone that forms somewhere between the ground and the falling debris. these collisions slow the collapse.

now, building seven was in ACTUAL freefall for 2.28 seconds, and so that means they used overkill with the explosives.

buildings one and two fell at two thirds G. this DOES match purposeful demolitions' accelerations.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
debunker: "well why didn't anyone hear any explosions, then?"



that's a lot of "transformers exploding".

and, not, "did you hear that? that building's about to collapse", it was, "did you hear that? move it back, that building's about to blow up".



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
debunker: "well why didn't anyone hear any explosions, then?"



that's a lot of "transformers exploding".

and, not, "did you hear that? that building's about to collapse", it was, "did you hear that? move it back, that building's about to blow up".



Absolutely right. This more then anything shows the lengths many debunkers will go.


If there are reports of explosions, debunkers argue for-- anything but bombs.

If they think there were no explosions, they ask 'where are the explosions?'

It shows they are willing to argue from any side of the fence so as long to prove their point.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by talisman]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


While the true believers will believe anything that even could be abstractly confused for a bomb like thing. Go figure...



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman

Originally posted by billybob
debunker: "well why didn't anyone hear any explosions, then?"



that's a lot of "transformers exploding".

and, not, "did you hear that? that building's about to collapse", it was, "did you hear that? move it back, that building's about to blow up".



Absolutely right. This more then anything shows the lengths many debunkers will go.


If there are reports of explosions, debunkers argue for-- anything but bombs.

If they think there were no explosions, they ask 'where are the explosions?'

It shows they are willing to argue from any side of the fence so as long to prove their point.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by talisman]


What are you talking about? Has everyone here forgotten we are looking for the truth? Arguing back and forth between each other endlessly is ridiculous. What good are you doing right now arguing with each other?

If you care about this issue research it more, and go out and be vocal in your community. You aren't going to be written about in the history books fighting for your country by lazily throwing around some text at some strangers on the 'net.

Do you not think, if the government did in fact cause this, that getting people arguing amongst themselves (instead of actually doing something) is exactly what they want? You're all just wasting your time and energy, yet none of you realize it. This is the true crime.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


...while the true deniers will believe anything but the idea that the twoofers (and all the live broadcast media, and tons of eyewitnesses) could be right about the explosions' source.




posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman


If there are reports of explosions, debunkers argue for-- anything but bombs.

If they think there were no explosions, they ask 'where are the explosions?'

It shows they are willing to argue from any side of the fence so as long to prove their point.



or, to constantly stymie the inevitable conclusion by baiting and switching the topic away from the relevant points.
witness the watcher and the whacker. who watches the watcher?

WE DO, ....WE DO!



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by sh1fty

Originally posted by talisman

Originally posted by billybob
debunker: "well why didn't anyone hear any explosions, then?"



that's a lot of "transformers exploding".

and, not, "did you hear that? that building's about to collapse", it was, "did you hear that? move it back, that building's about to blow up".



Absolutely right. This more then anything shows the lengths many debunkers will go.


If there are reports of explosions, debunkers argue for-- anything but bombs.

If they think there were no explosions, they ask 'where are the explosions?'

It shows they are willing to argue from any side of the fence so as long to prove their point.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by talisman]


What are you talking about? Has everyone here forgotten we are looking for the truth? Arguing back and forth between each other endlessly is ridiculous. What good are you doing right now arguing with each other?

If you care about this issue research it more, and go out and be vocal in your community. You aren't going to be written about in the history books fighting for your country by lazily throwing around some text at some strangers on the 'net.

Do you not think, if the government did in fact cause this, that getting people arguing amongst themselves (instead of actually doing something) is exactly what they want? You're all just wasting your time and energy, yet none of you realize it. This is the true crime.


Can you tell me what my point was? Cause I don't think you got it.

thnks.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by sh1fty
 


i think there's enough of us that we can all deal with what to do about it in our own way without judging one another and telling everyone, "if you're not doing it my way, then you're doing it wrong". ironic that you're using the same media channel you are decrying.
to spread your message of "don't spread messages on the web, get physical or you're useless".
searchable text is a powerful ally in the quest for truth and justice. the keyboard is mightier than the pen, these days.
that's why a lot of people won't do business over email, now, ....the dread "accountability" of dated, timestamped, indelible text.
mind you, the "endless staircase" debate between the TRUTHers and the debbies is about as tedious as digging a well with a toothpick, YET, it is not ineffective, as the mighty search engine is what guides our mutual "truth" these days, and letting the debbies chip away at and obfuscate twoofer arguments is like letting cancer go untreated. ...one cell at a time, shall the body be healed.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Ah, right. Considering it's one of your "side" that started this little tangent with yet another testimonial to your percieved rightousness that actually added nothing to the conversation. That is forgetting the fact that I am classified as a "conspiracy nut" as well in that I believe there was a conspiracy on 9/11 just not Controlled Demoliton.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Karilla
 


Your font=arial black is cute.....

BUT...other than that, your post has no merit whatsoever.

What part of a crushing massive weight from above is difficult to comprehend?

It's the EXACT method used in CD...EXCEPT, in CD there are very, very obvious explosive charges...detonations that make visual and audible effects, NOT seen in any of the Tower collapsing videos.

ALSO. in CD...there are WEEKS of intense preparation and plannign involved. AND, usually, the structure is rigged to 'implode'....from the bottom, or mid, NOT from top down.

AND....a true CD would not want all of the debris to go flying about, and damage nearby buildings...as was seen.



Wait, I've been reading through this debate, and while I don't have a big issue with the "puffing air" concept (like the folks arguing with you do), I do have a problem with the way you are conceptualizing the top of the building. Not only does Karilla have a point about the decimation of the floor being impacted by what is coming down on it, but the top is being decimated floor by floor (counting upward) with each floor impacted below (counting downward). That's where we have to stop referring to the top as one big mass. Because there is an equal and opposite impact force on the floor "pancaking" (if you will - I don't care if you call it pancake, belgium waffle or just "fall") as there is on the floor being impacted. So the lowest floor of the falling section is encountering as destructive a force as the upper floor of the stationary portion of the building.

That might be what everybody is trying to get you to think about, right?

To state it more clearly the "top" (i.e. the damaging momentum, the damaging force) is diminishing as it falls and as it continues down the structure is encountering more resistance because the structure only gets stronger...hence the issues of why it appears to fall with out resistance. You have a combination of diminishing force on the top and an increasing resistance on the bottom that seems to not be perceptible.

Then, as I've asked for about 5 years now - could you explain what happened to the core columns? In particular, the upper section of the core columns as the top of the building fell. No one has really been able (most people seem to not even have a desire) to answer that one. I know NIST didn't want to.


[edit on 9-24-2009 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Karilla
 


blackfish.org = junk

They, themselves acknowledge that their 'analysis' is based on the video evidence...ONLY...
___________________________________________________________
redact and edit snarky comment.....

[edit on 23 September 2009 by weedwhacker]


The video evidence was only used to measure the timing of the collapse. What were they supposed to use? Eyewitness testimony? Most people were actually pretty accurate, saying it took about 10 seconds. Using the video is more accurate, surely?

I was struck again, watching the second collapse, by how much of the bulk of the tower falls outwards. As soon as those large sections are beyond the outer walls of the tower their mass is no longer added to the mass impacting on the lowers sections, and yet the speed of collapse doesn't slow, and still nothing is left of the core columns. It makes no sense to assert that this was a natural collapse.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Karilla
 


blackfish.org = junk

They, themselves acknowledge that their 'analysis' is based on the video evidence...ONLY...
___________________________________________________________
redact and edit snarky comment.....

[edit on 23 September 2009 by weedwhacker]


The video evidence was only used to measure the timing of the collapse. What were they supposed to use? Eyewitness testimony? Most people were actually pretty accurate, saying it took about 10 seconds. Using the video is more accurate, surely?

I was struck again, watching the second collapse, by how much of the bulk of the tower falls outwards. As soon as those large sections are beyond the outer walls of the tower their mass is no longer added to the mass impacting on the lowers sections, and yet the speed of collapse doesn't slow, and still nothing is left of the core columns. It makes no sense to assert that this was a natural collapse.


Just to be clear...the NIST chose damage models based solely on video and photography, so...well, do I need to add anything?



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Just to be clear...the NIST chose damage models based solely on video and photography, so...well, do I need to add anything?


Yes, but their report only lead up to the moment of collapse, and then said "global collapse ensued". In my view Blackfish did the official story of the collapse as many favours as it could, such as treating the falling top-section as an intact mass for the duration of the collapse when it most definitely would not have been, and making reasonable assumptions for energy sinks that actually discounted certain factors because their exact influence (though real) was difficult to quantify. The end result is the same, the only way of fitting the observed speed of the collapse to the mathematical model is to have the mass of the lower floors turned into dust before the falling mass from above even touched it.

Whose fault is it that nobody had any physical evidence to work with anyway? The removal of all that steel was as close to an admission of gulit as we are ever likely to get.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
The key thing to remember is that the bringing down of the twin towers wasn't supposed to resemble a normal controlled demolition, it was a 'hybrid demolition' as I like to put it.

By design the explosives were used on each and every floor to resemble what the perpetrators thought would look more like a 'self collapse.'

WTC7 was more the classic blow the legs away from it.

The way the building fell down was not how it would have been brought down by a commerical company expert in these things, neither is it how the building would have collapsed naturally if it indeed was weakened as stated

The rate of collapse as it progressed should have decreased in speed (as the build up of debris slowed the momnetum and the core columns should have stayed intact as a supporting structure much longer than outer layers as thery were stripped off. Much like an ice cream cone melts and runs off the outside quicker than the frozen interior.

None of these were evident. The buildings were taken down to about 10 floors from the base... the buildings design mandates that there should have been a larger stub of the central core left standing



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join