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 2 - South Tower Explosions Visible - Extreme Slow Motion

page: 8
56
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


so what your saying is:

Any puff of smoke can only mean one thing, Explosives, there can be no other
explanation. That's it.

Because a building had a puff of smoke that "did" have Explosives, that
automatically means Explosives were used at the WTC because it also
had a puff of smoke.

Some people "might" say, that is an Extreemly narrow minded concussion.
But not Me :-D

And was that your own concussion, or just reading somebody else's
concussion?




posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
It's obvious.

simple as that.

good video... proof is in the pudding... You don't need a group of Architects, Engineers, Demolition Experts, and Scientists to tell me how the building fell. I have two eyes.


(There's a few video's of Building 7 that clearly show a silver flash as well)

[edit on 29-3-2010 by Doomsday 2029]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
David Chandler's interpretation on videos of the South tower's collapse, he is the man that compelled NIST to revise their cartoon on WTC7.

www.youtube.com...




I get the impression the nay sayers did not take the time to view the whole YouTube video from Mr Chandler, smurfy.

Thank you so much for posting this excellent video from this special man, I have never seen this chopper view.
The most compelling new find is that debris piece which get shot out, and suddenly a white hot spot on it turns up, it breaks a smaller piece off, and the biggest piece suddenly goes of-course at a nearly 90° angle and spirals down with a comet tail of white dust trailing behind.

And that's not the only white dust trail we see.
So, what could that be?

Perhaps this will clear it up (Thank you very much R., for putting me back on track for that, thought to be long lost, treasure trove) :


THERMITES

Thermites are a group of pyrotechnic mixtures in which a reactive metal reduces oxygen from a metallic oxide. This produces a lot of heat, slag and pure metal. The basic principle is of using metal in fine powder form. The most common thermite is Ferro-aluminum thermite, made from aluminum (reactive metal) and iron oxide (metal oxide). When it burns it produces aluminum oxide (slag) and pure iron. Thermite is usually used to cut or weld metal. The usual proportions of ferro-thermite are 25% aluminum and 75% iron oxide.
The iron oxide usually used is not rust (Fe2O3) but is iron scale (Fe3O4). Rust will work only when you adjust the mixture to about 77% rust. The aluminum is usually coarse powder to help slow down the burning rate. The chemicals are mixed together thoroughly and compressed into a suitable container and a kind of suitable topping is put on it of another mixture to ignite it, called the ignition-mix.
NOTE: Thermites are generally very safe to mix and store. They are not shock or friction sensitive and ignite only at about 2000 F.

An ignition-mix is a mixture that ignites easier than thermite and burns hot enough to light the thermite reliably. An example of it is:
Potassium Nitrate 50 %
Fine grounded Aluminum 30 %
Sulfur 20 %

This is a very well known variety of the oldest known ignition mixture.
Since aluminum might not be available, than we can easily use the same proportions, while replacing aluminum with charcoal.
We are thus making the old-school variety called gunpowder / black powder and using it as an ignition-mix.

Mix the above ingredients thoroughly and combine 2 parts of the above with 1 part of finely powdered ferro-thermite. The resulting mixture can be lit by a safety match and burns intensely.
Or top the ignition-mix on the ferro-thermite and lit the topped mix.

One problem with Thermites is the difference in weight between the aluminum and the oxide. This causes them to separate out rendering the thermite useless. One way to solve this is to use a binder to hold the chemicals together. Sulfur is good for this purpose and a product called Diasite contains enough of it, the next formula uses sulfur to bind all the chemicals together. Its drawback is the thermite must be heated to melt the sulfur. And so, to introduce sulfur in it, we simply reduce the aluminums percentage.

Iron Oxide 70 %
Aluminum 23 %
Sulfur 7 %

Mix the oxide and aluminum together and heat it only up to 325° Fahrenheit for a while. At this temperature no spontaneous reaction will be possible, remember that ferro-thermite needs to be heated up to 1800-2000° F to ignite. When the mixture is hot, sprinkle the sulfur over it and mix well. Put this back for a few minutes to melt all the sulfur. Bring it out and mix it again. While it is still hot, load into containers for use. When it cools, drill out a hole in this Diasite-containing mixture to hold about 10 - 15 grams of ignition-mix. When Diasite burns it forms sulfide compounds that release hydrogen sulfide, H2S gas, when in contact with water. This rotten egg odor can hamper fire-fighting efforts. Thermite can be made not to separate by compressing it under a couple of tons pressure. The resulting pellet is strong and burns slower than thermite powder.

CAST THERMITE: This formula can be cast into molds or containers and hardens into a solid mass. It does not produce as much iron as regular ferro-thermite, but it makes a slag, which stays liquid, a lot longer. Make a mixture as follows.

Plaster of Paris 2 parts
Fine and Coarse, Mixed Aluminum 2 parts
Iron Oxide 3 parts

Mix together well and add enough water to wet down the plaster. Pour it into a mold and let it sit for
one hour. Pour off any extra water that separates out on top. Let this dry in the sun for at least a week. Or dry in the sun for one day and put in a 250 F oven for a couple of hours. Drill a hole in the cast for an ignition-mix, when the cast is semi-dry.

THERMITE BOMB: Thermite can be made to explode by taking the above cast thermite formula and substituting fine powdered aluminum for the coarse/fine mix. The best to be used would be nano-aluminum obviously, but for most hobbyists this would be out of their league.
Nano aluminum would however enhance the explosive power by a factor 1000 !

Take 15 grams of ignition-mix and put in the center of a piece of aluminum foil. Insert a waterproof lunt into the mix and gather up the foil around the lunt. Waterproof the foil/lunt with a thin coat of wax. Obtain a two-piece spherical mold with a diameter of about 4-5 inches. Wax or oil the inside of the mold to help release the thermite. Now, fill one half of the mold with the cast thermite. Put the ignition+lunt package into the center of the filled mold. Fill the other half of the mold with the thermite and assemble mold. The mold will have to have a hole in it for the lunt to stick out. In an hour, carefully separate the mold. You should have a ball of thermite with the ignition-mix in the center of it, and the lunt sticking out of the ball. Dry the ball in the sun for a week.
DO NOT DRY IT IN AN OVEN! The lunt ignites the ignition-mix, which in turn ignites the thermite. Since the thermite is ignited from the center out, the heat builds up in the thermite and it burns faster than normal. The result is a small explosion. The thermite ball burns in a split second and throws molten iron and slag around. This all happens very fast.

THERMITE FUEL-AIR EXPLOSION: This is a very dangerous device. Ask yourself if you really truly want to make it before you do any work on it. It is next to impossible to give any dimensions of containers or weights of charges because of the availability of the mixture parts changes from one person to the next. However here is a general description of this device.

Make a thermite charge in a 1/8 in. wall pipe. This charge must be electrically ignited. At the opposite end of the pipe away from the igniter side put a small explosive charge of flash powder weighing about 1 oz. Drill a small hole in a pipe end cap and run the wires from the igniter through the hole. Seal the wires and hole up with fuel proof epoxy or cement. Try ferro-cement available at car parts stores. Dope the threads of the end caps with a good pipe dope and screw them onto the pipe. This gives you a thermite charge in an iron pipe arranged so that when the thermite is electrically ignited, it will burn from one end to the other finally setting of the flash powder charge. Place this device in a larger pipe or very stout metal container, which is sealed at one end. Use a couple of metal "spiders" to keep the device away from the walls or ends of the larger container. Run the wires out through the wall of the container and seal the wires with the fuel proof epoxy. Fill the container with a volatile liquid fuel. Acetone, Jet-fuel or gasoline works great. Now seal up the container with an appropriate end cap and it's done.

The device works like this: Attach a timer-power supply to the wires. When the thermite is ignited it super heats the liquid fuel. Since the container is strong enough to hold the pressure the fuel does not boil. When the thermite burns down to the explosive, it explodes rupturing the container and releasing the superheated fuel. The fuel expands, cooling off and making a fine mist and vapor that mixes with the surrounding air. The hot thermite slag is also thrown into the air that ignites the fuel-air mix. The result is obvious. Try about 1- lbs of thermite to a gallon of fuel. For the pressure vessel, try an old pressure cooker. Because the fuel may dissolve the epoxy don't keep this device around for very long. But ask yourself; do you really want to make this?


I have redacted this old knowledge piece quite a bit, and left out some really crazy and deadly pieces.
And I think it's better to not include a link, since there are probably a lot of youngsters on board, and we don't want them getting the wrong ideas.
Let them first collect some life experience, and especially a lot of care for others.

As you can see, that last one is a crude thermobaric bomb, as described by me in my Thermobaric thread. Some call it Hyperbaric, whatever.


A note for Prof Jones :

Look at all that sulfur in that ignition mixture.
And 7% sulfur is used as an excellent binder to keep the two other powders from falling apart.

And then we have that earliest NY Times reported piece of the FEMA report about the sulfur-rich razor sharp edges of that one and only sampled WTC 7, eaten away, beam.

The only left, really interesting research for me, is to try to find out how they ignited the charges.
I personally think it was done with the most reliable form of ignition timers:
Pressure switches.
One big initial explosion, radio controlled, and then the pressure of the breaking parts will ignite the next level, and so on.

[edit on 29/3/10 by LaBTop]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al

Originally posted by chunder
reply to post by thedman
 


Hi, I follow what you are saying and excuse my ignorance, I am no civil engineer but what caused the columns to collapse ?

What weakened them floor by floor ?

What caused the first floorplate to collapse uniformly so that it's entire mass and momentum was available to act immediately on the proceeding floorplate ?

Why did it appear that there was absolutely no resistance to this effect ?

How did the fire get hot enough to melt the first clips / trusses ?

Why hadn't that been predicted as a risk when analysis of a 707 hitting a tower was carried out way back ?


1. Not weakend, Pulverised by the Massive Kinetic Energy of a Fully
Loaded Jumbo

2. A Fully Loaded Jumbo Fly flat chat into a Building

3. Once a single floor fell, the Kinetic Energy of that floor caused the
Next Floor to Fail.

4. Why and Who said the trusses had to melt, they were just weakened.

5. The Origianal Design only allowed a smaller 707 size, assumed not
fully loaded, and the pilots would be trying to avoid a accident by
slowing the impact. This was the Biggest Plane at the time.
Massive difference in Kinetic Energy with a 707 going at 100mph and
fully loaded Jumbo going at 500 Mph.
Like Comparing a Mini hitting a brick wall at 20mph and a Hummer
hitting a brick wall at 100mph



1. So why were they still structurally sound after being "pulverised" ?

2. The first floorplate didn't fall when hit by the plane ?

3. Even so this should have left the supports standing ?

4. Accepted as a possible theory to explain the uneven collapse of several floorplates. However this is not what happened ?

5. The initial kinetic energy did not cause the tower to collapse ?



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by chunder
 


The floors above the impact point weighed 40,000+ TONS

Steel will also lose around 50% of its strength at the temperature these fires went to. So DIDN'T melt DOESN'T have to.

If any one claims the fires were almost out at the start of collapse look at videos and picture taken then.


That would be the 40,000 tons supported by the central columns prior to the impact and the same 40,000 tons supported afterwards I assume.

Therefore I assume that you are arguing that fire caused a weakening of the central columns around the levels of impact causing the floors above to collapse creating the pack of cards or pancake effect ?

That being the case what are the odds of simaltaneous failure allowing a vertical collapse ?

Why was there no visible deformation prior to the collapse ?



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by chunder
 





What weakened them floor by floor ?

What caused the first floorplate to collapse uniformly so that it's entire mass and momentum was available to act immediately on the proceeding floorplate ?

Why did it appear that there was absolutely no resistance to this effect ?

How did the fire get hot enough to melt the first clips / trusses ?

Why hadn't that been predicted as a risk when analysis of a 707 hitting a tower was carried out way back ?



You dont have to weaken every floor - all it takes is one floor collapsing

When that floor collapsed into one below it sheared the bolts holding the
floor truss in place dropping that floor into one below - repeating the process until reached ground

Fire was feed by office contents ignited by jet fuel. There was sufficent fuel to raise temperature in most intenses fires to 1800 F (1000 C)
At that temperature steel has only 10 % of original strenght

Molten material was seen flowing from the corner of building where
collapse initiated shortly before it collapsed

video of fires showing molten material flowing from building

video.google.com...#

As for aircraft impact - original model was for 707 (largest at that time)
lost in fog flying low and slow (~ 180 mph) hitting building

In sense a replay of the 1945 Empire State Bld accident where B25 hit it.

At time WTC built was no way to model fires


"When that floor collapsed into one below it sheared the bolts holding the
floor truss in place dropping that floor into one below - repeating the process until reached ground"

You forgot to add leaving the central supporting columns standing.

Aside from that there were more than one floor plates on each floor. How did they all fall simaltaneously ?

As for the claim about the temperatures reached and the strength of steel can you please reference that and not just link the unrelated matter of the molten material ?

The molten material was not from a structural member and if anything is evidence of something else.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
How ?-? could they estimate 13-15% damage to columns when the final
resting place is just a twisted, pulverised mass of Rubble and unable to tell
what piece joined onto what piece.

In which case it could only Speculation, based on someone using X-Ray Vision
flying around in the Chopper.


Secondly:
In a normal Building, I beams connecting the Floors are resting on Concrete walls, there are no bolts holding the floors up. The I Beams are not exposed anywhere to be venerable to Fire. Infinately more stronger than WTC.
Why didn't they use Traditional I Beams, too heavy. Instead opting for the
lighter, less rigid trusses. Because of this "Pancaking" would be "almost" impossible in a Tradional Tower without help.

You can't compare what happens in those towers to any traditionsal tower.
The Building Technique is so unique, taditional rules just don't apply.


You didn't need X-ray vision, there were people exiting through the stairwells. From the damage reported in the stairwells it is relatively easy to extrapolate that figure.

That's aside from any actual scientific analysis.

Secondly, in a normal world you would expect all reasonably intelligent people to come to the same conclusions when based on the same data.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by chunder
 


I still can't see how those leaving below the damaged floors can determine how much damage was done (13-15%).
And I would think all people on or above the Impact Zone would disagree with that 15% damage. The mere fact that only a handful of people escaped the Impact Zone, tells me that building was F'ed from the initial Impact.

And since when has 911 truthers used scientific evidence analysis.
All their evidence is based on Still or Motion Pictures.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   
I have a question for all of you so far.

Have any of you actually tried to calculate to see if its actually possible for the collapsing top part of the building to hit the ground in 10 seconds, by traveling through the intact standing part of the building?

Even if the floors did impact on each other on the way down it would take more than 10 seconds.



For the collapsing part of the building to hit the ground in 10 seconds. It would have had to fall on the outside of the tween towers. In other words beside it in air.

Just the initial acceleration of the collapse is not enough to get this tower down in 10 seconds unless the floors and the center columns where gone.



You can discuss the structure all you want but the timing of everything is there. And you can see the whole building below the crash point is intact. Just that is enough resistance to screw up the free fall theory. The top part of the building as you all can see is not falling through air as it would have had to do to reach the ground in 10 seconds.


These buildings were brought down END OF STORY. No matter what or how it was built. The building standing under the collapse would still have more friction than air.

The only way i could get the building to fall in 10 seconds. Was if the floors bellow fell before the collapsing top. And that must be done by demolition. Because the floors them selves would not fall all by them selves all the way to the ground without resistance. Without one floor hitting another. And one floor hitting another is resistance greater than air.


America you have been scammed. Because you can't do the math.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Perhaps this will clear it up (Thank you very much R., for putting me back on track for that, thought to be long lost, treasure trove) :


If you were refering to me you are welcome.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   
If some one would like to do the math on the collapsing building. I will post some example on how to do the calculations.

I will only post the basic equations for a building falling straight down. I will do the first calculation without resistance. Then i will do a equation with resistance.


1. A building falling without resistance:

Building = 100 000 ton.

Acceleration = ?

a = F-net / mass

We have to find: F-nett (F-net is the gravitational field strength of the building in this case) (9.8 N/kg).

F-net = a x mass

F-net = 9.8 N/kg x 100 000 ton

F-nett = 980 000 N

F-net = 980 000 N is the gravitational field strength of the building.



The acceleration for this building is:

a = F-net / mass

a = 980 000 N / 100 000 ton

a = 9.8 m/s

What this means is that a building that has a mass of 100 000 ton will accelerate from 0m to 9.8m in 1 sec. Without resistance.

A example:

t = 0 sec. v = 0 m/s
|
t = 1 sec. v = 9.8 m/s
|
|
t = 2 sec. v = 19.6 m/s
|
|
|
t= 3 sec. v = 29.4 m/s
|
|
|
|
t = 4 sec. v = 39.2 m/s
|
|
|
|
|
t = 5 sec. v = 49 m/sec




In 10 sec. This building would only be at 98m. If it fell without resistance.

The WTC 2 hit the ground after 10 sec. It fell about 300m.

Lets do this one before we move on.

Speed = Distance / Time

Speed = 300m / 10 sec.

Speed = 30 m/s ????

What this means is that WTC fell from 0m to 30m in 1 sec.



Example:

t = 0 sec. v= 0 m/s
|
|
|
|
|
t = 1 sec. v= 30 m/s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
t = 2 sec. v= 90 m/s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
t = 3 sec. v= 120 m/s

At 3 seconds the WTC2 is at 120m.

In 7 seconds it will hit the ground 280m further down. (Newton's second law of motion). WTC must have been sucked down by a vacuum. A vacuum that can only be created by demolition at this speed.



A building falling with resistance:

Building = 100 000 ton

t= 1 sec

F-grav = 980 000N
F-resistance = 0(N)

a = 980 000 / 100 000 ton
a= 9.8 m/s

No resistance means free fall = 9.8 m/s


t = 2 sec.

F-grav = 980 000N
F-resistance = 350 000N

F-net = 980 000N - 350 000N
F-net = 630 000N

a = 630 000 / 100 000 ton
a = 6.3 m/s

Resistance means reduction of speed.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Your Wogic maybe a scwewy

The Buildings weighted ~500,000 Tons / give or take a few thousand

After 10 seconds it would be travelling at 98m per second, unless it
reached it's terminal Velocity.
The total distance accumulating all the other seconds would be 539 Meters

The Tower were 417 and 415 Meters tall. So if concrete was dropped from a helicopter it would take < ~8.1 seconds, taking 4 seconds less than the towers.

Also, each floor was only built to withstand 100 Pounds per square foot (1/2 an American) of load on the Floor Space. Other Highrise will take 150 - 250 Pounds per Square Foot.

But what does it prove.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by chunder
 


I still can't see how those leaving below the damaged floors can determine how much damage was done (13-15%).
And I would think all people on or above the Impact Zone would disagree with that 15% damage. The mere fact that only a handful of people escaped the Impact Zone, tells me that building was F'ed from the initial Impact.

And since when has 911 truthers used scientific evidence analysis.
All their evidence is based on Still or Motion Pictures.




"The mere fact that only a handful of people escaped the Impact Zone, tells me that building was F'ed from the initial Impact."

That being the case why are we waiting so long for the Pentagon to collapse ?

"And since when has 911 truthers used scientific evidence analysis.
All their evidence is based on Still or Motion Pictures."

Until any scientific evidence is presented that adequately explains how these buildings came to collapse then I will base my understanding on what I saw with my own eyes.

In fact, for a layman such as myself, there seems to be more reliable evidence that points to a controlled demolition than anything else. Call it scientific or not but a fair degree of it comes from scientists.

The damage caused by the initial impact of the planes was relatively superficial. Take a close look at the impact points, the structural exterior is hardly damaged. Internally we can only guess but as in effect the plane was shredded by the exterior and the explosion even remaining large parts such as engines would only have a superficial effect on the internal structural supports.

Sure, ceilings would have been destroyed, internal partitioning, even blockwork walls and, whilst unlikely, small sections of any laid slab or formwork.

Let us not forget the terrible damage to flesh and bone and loss of human life.

The resulting fires could (there is scientific evidence either way) have weakened the trusses causing the slippage of floor plates. It is impossible for a whole floor to have dropped at the same time. I don't know how many trusses or individual floorplates a floor consists of but for the even, symmetrical collapse of a floor below they would have to have dropped at the same time. Bearing in mind that pretty rapidly they are also hitting floors that do not have weakened trusses.

However, this is not what is seen. What happens is that the whole section of the building above the impact level collapses as one. What can be clearly seen is the simaltaneous collapse of all exterior and interior structural support at that level at the same time. This section then appears to cause the destruction of the levels below as it falls.

How is this possible - why in any controlled demolitions don't they just take out the support on one level 2/3 rds of the way up ?

Aside from that, even allowing for the exterior structure simply to "snap" following the simaltaneous failure of the internal structural columns, what caused that internal failure. We know it wasn't the initial impact so it must have been fire on top of any impact damage.

So where is the fire ? We see black smoke - an oxygen starved smouldering of any combustible material still left after the initial impact and explosion.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al
 


Initially you can only take the weight of the building section above the impact level - unless you are suggesting that the actual collapse occurred at ground level ?

It would actually be interesting to have an accurate figure for the free fall time of 100,000 tons of building and then to compare it to the actual time that was taken.

Regarding the floor loadings what is your point - yes a floorplate falling from above could cause the collapse of a floorplate below. But not the collapse of structural supports - what caused that ?

[edit on 31-3-2010 by chunder]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by chunder
 


Can't compare the Pentagon to WTC or any other Building, just like
you can't compare the WTC to any other Building.

The Pentagon was a Traditionally Built Building with re-inforcement to
survive traditional Bombs and small aircraft.

The planes were more than superfiscial.
Only a few escaped to the Impact Zone and Above.

Why you might ask

Turns out these Massive building only had 3 Fire Stairwells and were
all located deep inside the Inner Core. All stairways must have been
blocked. For these to have been Blocked more than half the Inner Core
must have been breached. Or they could have escaped but the FBI paid
then a Million Bucks to take a dive.

And if you look a vids, you see the Tower built on top of the Central
Core gave way first, indicating the Core Dropped. The Floors could do
nothing else but follow.

The entire plane went but didn't come out, it had to go somewhere.

It is the Inner Core that holds the Building Up not the Outer Tin Can.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by spy66
 


Your Wogic maybe a scwewy

The Buildings weighted ~500,000 Tons / give or take a few thousand

After 10 seconds it would be travelling at 98m per second, unless it
reached it's terminal Velocity.
The total distance accumulating all the other seconds would be 539 Meters

The Tower were 417 and 415 Meters tall. So if concrete was dropped from a helicopter it would take < ~8.1 seconds, taking 4 seconds less than the towers.

Also, each floor was only built to withstand 100 Pounds per square foot (1/2 an American) of load on the Floor Space. Other Highrise will take 150 - 250 Pounds per Square Foot.

But what does it prove.





It doesnt matter if it waighs 100 000 ton or 500 000 tons. Its still bound by the Gravitational field 9.8 N/kg. And 500 000 tons would steal fall from 0 m to 9.8m/s if there is no resistance.

The only difference between the two ( 100 000 and 500 000) is that 100 000 ton will reach its terminal Velocity before 500 000 tons does. AND thats because of the resistance of air or other. That means when 100 000 ton meats is terminal Velocity (which means it is not accelerating any more by 9.8 m/s. 500 000 ton would still be accelerating because its net weight is 400 000 tons more.

This is quite relevant. If the bilding doesn't reach 300m in 10 seconds with a acceleration speed 9.8 m/s without resistane.

NB i meassured the distance from the bottom part of the collapsing building. I just used a 100 000 ton as a sedjustion.

If you meassure the speed of the people who jump from the building and compare that to the collapsing building you will see that i am not wrong.






[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
If you droped a brick of 10 kg from 417m.

Equation:

F-net = 10 kg x 9.8N/kg

F-net = 98 N

-acelleration of 98 N:

a = 98 / mass (10 kg)

a = 9.8 m/s

Time it would hit the ground without resistance:

Time = distance / speed

Time = 417m / 9.8 m/s

Time = 42.5 seconds.



A human jumping from 417m:

Human 85 kg.

F-net = 85 kg x 9.8 N/kg

F-net = 833 N

Acceleration of 833 N:

a = F-net / mass (85 kg)

a = 9.8 m/s

Time human would hit the ground without resistance:

Time = distance / speed

Time = 417m / 9.8 m/s

Time = 42.5 secons



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
And if you look a vids, you see the Tower built on top of the Central
Core gave way first, indicating the Core Dropped. The Floors could do
nothing else but follow.


These are the kinds of definitive statements that really puzzle me. What do you mean that the core "Dropped?" Where did it drop? Was it bouncing around inside the building? Did it drop down right down through the Earth below? Where did it drop to, exactly?



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by skeptic_al
And if you look a vids, you see the Tower built on top of the Central
Core gave way first, indicating the Core Dropped. The Floors could do
nothing else but follow.


These are the kinds of definitive statements that really puzzle me. What do you mean that the core "Dropped?" Where did it drop? Was it bouncing around inside the building? Did it drop down right down through the Earth below? Where did it drop to, exactly?


Most likely its the core of the building you see shooting out from the sides as dust.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I have seen many OS believers make this claim bout it "dropping" and I would really like just one of them to explain to me where it is they believe it "dropped" to.



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join