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.

 

WTC construction manager speaks of the resilience of the twin towers

page: 19
16
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


thats a lovely video

Blowed up real good

What type of explosives were used ?




posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Sean48
 


en.wikipedia.org...

As the object accelerates (usually downwards due to gravity), the drag force acting on the object increases, causing the acceleration to decrease. At a particular speed, the drag force produced will equal the object's weight (mg). At this point the object ceases to accelerate altogether and continues falling at a constant speed called terminal velocity (also called settling velocity). Terminal velocity varies directly with the ratio of weight to drag. More drag means a lower terminal velocity, while increased weight means a higher terminal velocity. An object moving downward with greater than terminal velocity (for example because it was affected by a downward force or it fell from a thinner part of the atmosphere or it changed shape) will slow until it reaches terminal velocity.

No magic, just physics.


Your forgetting , by the OS , only the top few floors of the towers had damage, fire , pixie dust whatever.

The floors below , by the OS , were intact and supporting.

Why did they disinagrate to dust.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 




I am not forgetting any thing. There were multiple floors that had damage to inner and outer columns. No pixie dust, but there was a crapload of jet fuel and combustible items.

The floors below were intact. However, try this. Hold 100 pounds over your head with two hands, then take one away....can you hold on? You are not designed to just as the buildings are not designed to redistribute the entire weight of 30+ floors.

Did you ever see or go to the WTC in person? Not a picture or an internet video but actually see it?

[edit on 7-1-2010 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

The floors below were intact. However, try this. Hold 100 pounds over your head with two hands, then take one away....can you hold on? You are not designed to just as the buildings are not designed to redistribute the entire weight of 30+ floors.






Awesome!!!! Please, try this yourself. Tell me, does the 100lb object then fall to one side or the other, or just crush straight down through your skull and the rest of your body?



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Actually, it falls straight down, hits my head (resistance) and then tilts to the side that was weakened keeps falling just like the WTC did. Now apply that to a 100 foot skyscraper and tell me what you have?



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Actually, it falls straight down, hits my head (resistance) and then tilts to the side that was weakened keeps falling just like the WTC did. Now apply that to a 100 foot skyscraper and tell me what you have?



What???? Um...I mean huh? It falls straight down, until it hits the rest of the structure (you) and then falls to one side, right?

None of the WTC buildings did that. They all went straight down through the resistance. Where do you see any of those buildings falling to one side or another? All 3 went straight down.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Now apply that to a 100 foot skyscraper and tell me what you have?



You would have the section above the damage falling to the side with the least support and then continuing on that path - that path NOT being straight down, even a little.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Originally posted by esdad71
They all went straight down through the resistance. Where do you see any of those buildings falling to one side or another? All 3 went straight down.


So you agree that they just followed the laws of physics, and fell as you would expect them to do after the planes crashing and the fires.

[edit on 7/1/10 by dereks]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
So you agree that they just followed the laws of physics, and fell as you would expect them to do after the planes crashing and the fires.


Are you just posting to get points? What part of my post gives you any idea that I think that they followed the laws of physics by falling STRAIGHT DOWN THROUGH THE INTACT BUILDING BELOW?

[edit on 1/7/10 by Lillydale]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
What part of my post gives you any idea that I think that they followed the laws of physics by falling STRAIGHT DOWN THROUGH THE INTACE BUILDING BELOW?


where you stated "They all went straight down through the resistance. "

as you would expect them to do, following the laws of physics. The building could not support the ke of the building falling down above, so collapsed straight down.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Wow I'm really at a loss why you guys cannot understand that the resistance from the undamaged structure would have at the LEAST slowed the collapse as the resistance grew. The resistance would increase as the building collapsed.

Again back to WTC2 that you all seem to fail to realise completely debunks your hypothesis. Physics clearly teaches us that an object in motion stays in motion unless an unbalanced outside force acts on it (friction/resistance).
According to you guys the only thing acting on the tilting top was gravity.
Gravity does not attract object like a magnet, it will not pull things straight down when it has SOMETHING in the way, like tons of steel, that would be called resistance and ALL object ALWAYS take the path of LEAST resistance.

How does the undamaged building become the path of LEAST resistance when the top was already falling into the path of LEAST resistance (air), as well as of course having angular momentum, which means GRAVITY was pulling the top down already, and the only way for the angular momentum to become vertical momentum is if SOMETHING happened to the lower structure, that was NOT damaged by plane or fire (be honest here, no wild assumptions). The top is not going to push down the building when it wasn't sitting true, there is no way that it can become a symmetrical collapse. This is basic physics and anyone with any practical experience with mechanics or engineering should know this simply from practical applications.

Unless the building was collapsed from under the top, the top would have continued it's angular momentum and fall off the side. This is not my opinion but the application of Newtons basic laws of physics.

[edit on 1/7/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
as you would expect them to do, following the laws of physics. The building could not support the ke of the building falling down above, so collapsed straight down.


You obviously don't understand Kinetic Energy. KE is the measure of energy of a moving object, it's not energy like it has it's own power to accelerate itself. Something has to provide the initial energy to create movement, once the object is moving it is said to have KE.

Maybe it's the word 'energy' confusing you. Energy in physics is the measurement of the amount of work that can be done by a force. It's not fuel, or power, it's an abstract entity.

For example a moving object has KE according to the static observer, but the object itself has zero KE in the reference frame which moves with the object.

No system is in isolation, you have other forces working apart from KE that you are ignoring, mainly friction/resistance which get's in the way of your KE.

[edit on 1/7/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
as you would expect them to do, following the laws of physics. The building could not support the ke of the building falling down above, so collapsed straight down.


I can tell just by reading your posts that you've never even have a basic physics class, ie 101.

There is no law of physics that says "buildings fall straight down through themselves." Gravity is the weakest force in nature.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
where you stated "They all went straight down through the resistance. "

as you would expect them to do, following the laws of physics.


Looks like I am a little late to the party but please educate me some, wont you kind sir? Which laws of physics might you be referring to? Keep in mind, I will probably expect you to be able to also apply them as well. I know you spend plenty of time on these threads teaching the ignorant masses so I am certain that a response will be coming. I would think silence, from someone with your posting history, would be an admission of TOOYA.


The building could not support the ke of the building falling down above, so collapsed straight down.


Ok, either pretend I am a physics professor and you want to sound smart, and try and explain that again. If you like, instead pretend I just learned how to read and that is the entirety of my knowledge; now talk to me as if I were that ignorant. Either one, just something that resembles real physics.

I hope you do not take this as an insult as I am merely begging for your expertise. You obviously know much more about physics than I do because you lost me already. You always have a lot to say so I have to assume you are a smart guy by some standard, right?

Thanks in advance, I really truly look forward to your response with Christmas morning childlike glee.
Hugs and Kisses,
Lil



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


They did NOT go straight down. None of them. The WTC both toppled to one side and then fell and the WTC 7 Collapsed within itself not on top of itself. There is a difference.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Lillydale
 


They did NOT go straight down. None of them. The WTC both toppled to one side and then fell


Really? Can you please show me this. I have seen the collapses many many times and I have yet to see either tower topple over sideways.


and the WTC 7 Collapsed within itself not on top of itself. There is a difference.


The difference is in your head and you know it. Either it collapsed into a central singularity, or it fell straight down through it self. Word it however you like, that will not change your fairy tale.

I am going to go make popcorn. Cannot wait for your videos!



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
...The WTC both toppled to one side and then fell...


Actually only one did, WTC2.

But I'm glad you admit this, now how do you explain the top causing the whole building to globally collapse again?

BTW the buildings, ALL 3, globally collapsed and due to their design, taller than they were wide, for global collapse to happen technically the collapses would HAVE to be symmetrical. Otherwise the collapse would have not been complete (global), especially if your method of collapse is correct. Again that pesky resistance would cause the already tilting building to just simply keep in tilting, not change it's mind and become a symmetrical global collapse. The resistance was obviously removed, question is by what? You guys don't want to even address the fact that it's an issue, let alone try to explain this obvious problem with the official plot. There being no sign of 'explosives' doesn't alter the facts, doesn't make the physics all add up, you're just wasting your time with that argument. You must like wasting your time?

BTW just so you understand the terms I'm using...(relevant definitions balded)


Main Entry: sym·met·ri·cal
Pronunciation: \sə-ˈme-tri-kəl\
Variant(s): or sym·met·ric \-trik\
Function: adjective
Date: 1653

1 : having, involving, or exhibiting symmetry
2 : having corresponding points whose connecting lines are bisected by a given point or perpendicularly bisected by a given line or plane
3 symmetric : being such that the terms or variables may be interchanged without altering the value, character, or truth
4 a : capable of division by a longitudinal plane into similar halves b : having the same number of members in each whorl of floral leaves
5 : affecting corresponding parts simultaneously and similarly
6 : exhibiting symmetry in a structural formula; especially : being a derivative with groups substituted symmetrically in the molecule

— sym·met·ri·cal·ly \-tri-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

— sym·met·ri·cal·ness \-kəl-nəs\ noun


Main Entry: glob·al
Pronunciation: \ˈglō-bəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1640

1 : spherical
2 : of, relating to, or involving the entire world : worldwide ; also : of or relating to a celestial body (as the moon)
3 : of, relating to, or applying to a whole (as in the whole building collapsed completely) : universal

— glob·al·ly \ˈglō-bə-lē\ adverb



Main Entry: 1re·sis·tance
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈzis-tən(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 a : an act or instance of resisting : opposition b : a means of resisting
2 : the power or capacity to resist: as a : the inherent ability of an organism to resist harmful influences (as disease, toxic agents, or infection) b : the capacity of a species or strain of microorganism to survive exposure to a toxic agent (as a drug) formerly effective against it
3 : an opposing or retarding force (As in undamaged bolted/welded building structure).
4 a : the opposition offered by a body or substance to the passage through it of a steady electric current b : a source of resistance
5 : a psychological defense mechanism wherein a patient rejects, denies, or otherwise opposes the therapeutic efforts of a psychotherapist
6 often capitalized : an underground organization of a conquered or nearly conquered country engaging in sabotage and secret operations against occupation forces and collaborators

www.merriam-webster.com...

Hope that helps...


[edit on 1/8/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   

...and the WTC 7 Collapsed within itself not on top of itself. There is a difference.


This is why I slipped in the definitions in my last post, kind of a joke, but you like to play the semantics game.

What will you argue next, the buildings didn't collapse they folded down into a more compact shape?

[edit on 1/8/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


If you enter these forums and these threads you should be educated in the basics of 9/11. I am not posting any videos as you can find them yourself but

WTC 1
tilts to the left....

Google Video Link


WTC comes right at you...

Google Video Link


Any questions? I mean, someone else posted that BOTH did not tilt, right? C'mon guys. Get edjamacated.....



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You're a pisser that is why I like reading your posts. Not semantics but perception. Very close cousins.

WTC 7 was a side effect of a major catastrophe. If you look at all of the buildings that were destroyed that day it would seem that the ones that were actually constructed with non-exotic design or bolt on floors survived.

The WTC 7 was a Frankenstein of a building and it is lucky that more debris did not hit it or I feel it would have been lost earlier in the day.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join