It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# In Support Of The Twin Towers Collapsing Due To Fire .

page: 14
10
share:

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:28 AM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

A potential energy calculation is based on the ASSUMPTION that the MASS in question is free to fall the DISTANCE in question. That means the distance must be EMPTY.

You could compute the mass of the top 100 feet of Mt. Everest and multiply that by its height above Sea Level. But what would that mean in terms of reality? It would be nothing but a mathematical DELUSION.. The mass can't fall. All of the mountain is in the way.

First off a mountain is solid. The world trade center was mostly air. So comparing something like a mountain to something that is 95% air like a pop boggles my mind.

SOURCE: Dr. Thoms Eagar Professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT
911research.wtc7.net...

"The world trade center was mostly air"
"if 95% of it's air, as was the case here"

The WTC towers stood for 28 years. Hundreds of thousands of people went in and out for years without the slightest worry about them falling down. What was their potential energy?

ZERO!

wow just more un-expert opinion. Do you have a source that says the WTC tower didn't have any potential energy? I'm noticing more and more that you make claims and don't have a source to back them up.

The people are not worried about the potential energy they have faith that the supports of the building prevent the potential energy of the building from turning into kenetic energy. A roller coaster at the top of a hill with the breaks on has potential energy. The breaks prevent the potential energy from turning into kenetic energy. The WTC towers had potential energy. The support structure prevented the potential energy from turning into kenetic energy. (much like the breaks on the roller coaster car).

SOURCE:
www.physicsclassroom.com...

But that would not be empty space all of the way to the ground.

more 100% un expert opinion. It was not empy space. That's why the towers didn't collapse at free fall speed. It was 95% air.

"Material was turning to dust hundreds of feet above the ground. How could potential energy computed relative to the ground cause dustification hundreds of feet up? "

You should watch destroyed in seconds. The episode about the apartment complex that collapsed. Without any explosives. Material was turning into dust without the use of explosives. Material was turning into dust with only kinetic energy!

I think EVERYBODY over the age of 12 is QUALIFIED to understand Newtonian Physics if properly explained. Why can't you.

This is coming from the someone who (aside from not citing a source to support such a claim) just tried to use a mountain as an example of why something being held up against the force of gravity does not have potential energy.

I also think that it's funny that i'm citing a grade/middle school physics website to refute your claim that something being held up against the force of gravity does not have potential energy.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by iamcpc]

[edit on 26-5-2010 by iamcpc]

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:32 AM

"more 100% un expert opinion. It was not empy space. That's why the towers didn't collapse at free fall speed. It was 95% air."

damn near...

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:39 AM

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL

"more 100% un expert opinion. It was not empy space. That's why the towers didn't collapse at free fall speed. It was 95% air."

damn near...

Just like if I dropped a cinder block on an aluminum can which is 95% air it would collapse at nearly free fall speeds without the use of explosives.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:48 AM

lol how do you get a star for that?
Yeah the The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, some of you may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, as fast as will a solid metal ball.
That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the potential gravitational energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's maximal rate of 32 ft/sec/sec.
In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward acceleration will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance.
That's why you may have heard the term "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase, without limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its propensity to fall will be matched by air's resistance to the fall. At that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:54 AM

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL

lol how do you get a star for that?
Yeah the The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, some of you may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, as fast as will a solid metal ball.
That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the potential gravitational energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's maximal rate of 32 ft/sec/sec.
In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward acceleration will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance.
That's why you may have heard the term "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase, without limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its propensity to fall will be matched by air's resistance to the fall. At that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time.

I don't even have to ask for you to cite a source because everything you're saying i've already read from an expert source. If anyone wants I will link them to the sources which confirm these statements. I agree with everything that you have said. Thank you for restating my point in greater detail.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:56 AM

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.
Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.
But that can only occur in a vacuum.
Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:00 PM
In order for the tower to have "collapsed" gravitationally, as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

* The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
* On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
* On 9/11, energy was not conserved
However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.
Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC "collapses" fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:01 PM

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.

Wouldn't that depend on the terminal velocity of steel and concrete?

[edit on 26-5-2010 by iamcpc]

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:07 PM

Yes it would and that's what makes the official story even more out of the question...

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:24 PM

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
In order for the tower to have "collapsed" gravitationally, as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

* The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
* On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
* On 9/11, energy was not conserved
However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.
Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC "collapses" fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a "pancake collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse theory" explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.

* The undamaged stories below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse

I have seen a lot of pictures showing debri falling faster than the buildings were collapsing because the stories below the impact zone offered resistance to the collapse.

www.debunking911.com...

I had a link to these photos that was not a debunking911 site but the photos were still the same so what website they came from should not mater. THey clearly show the collapse of the building and several feet or even yards below the actual collapse debri from the building.

Very clearly showing that the undamaged stories below the impact zone offered resistance to the collapse.

* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy

There was a massive release of energy. I watched the collapse videos 23 times. I compared them very closely to demolitions. I didn't hear any explosions which would support theory that the massive release of energy was the release of the kenitic energy of tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of concrete and steel crushing the undamaged floors below them.

Do you have a source that said that On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity and On 9/11, energy was not conserved? I would love to read about them for myself.

I thought the law of the conservation of energy was that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't know where, on 9/11, energy was created or destroyed. I can't refute it. Do you have a source that explains, in detail, where and and when energy was created or destroyed on 9/11?

Also throw me to the source that said that gravity on 9/11 was much stronger than normal gravity?

[edit on 26-5-2010 by iamcpc]

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:26 PM

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL

Yes it would and that's what makes the official story even more out of the question...

You say it's what makes the official story even more out of the question. I say it's an example of how much more research we need to do before we can decide what theory is the most likely.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:27 PM

It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC "collapses" can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults: the unnaturally-brief durations of the highly destructive top-down "collapses" reveal that the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they came down because something [else] was causing them to disintegrate.
So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse" explanation, Gates' other premise, that people know what they saw, is also incorrect. It is left to you and everyone to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon two incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.
The purported "gravitational collapse" (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.
The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:42 PM

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL

It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC "collapses" can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults: the unnaturally-brief durations of the highly destructive top-down "collapses" reveal that the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they came down because something [else] was causing them to disintegrate.
So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse" explanation, Gates' other premise, that people know what they saw, is also incorrect. It is left to the reader to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon two incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.
The purported "gravitational collapse" (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.
The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion.

So i'm back to the research board to find out how the experts all disagree on the speed that thet twin towers collapsed.

What about the gravitational collapse when I dropped a cinderblock on a pop can. The pop can collapsed downward through the path of the greatest resistance at nearly free fall speed.

So when you say that "It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times." Does that not apply to really small metal towers like pop cans? What if I got a bigger pop can and a bigger cinderblock? I'd almost be willing to bet the results would be similar.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:44 PM
A lot of effort went into your OP, so well done for that.

Unfortunately, the Official version of events is absolute, steaming BS, so the towers and building 7 falling due to an aircraft impact (fire alone in B7), is wholly and completely wrong.

The Official report is bogus, i'm afraid.

Bush junior admits this with his own words.

Look at this;

He's talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has claimed responsibility for 9/11, aparently.

We also have Rumsfeld admitting in a separate video clip, that flight 93 was shot down..again, rubbishing the official story.

Yet again, we have a loose lipped Silverstein admitting they demolished building 7 on 9/11, again, contrary to the BS OS.

We have virtually EVERY single video tape, that could have potentially captured the events at the Pentagon that day, seized by the FBI as soon as humanly possible. Every CCTV camera, every store, and so on, all data taken. Why would they do this?

Evidence? Evidence of what exactly...an aircraft ploughing into the side of the Pentagon? Isn't this something that was known earlier on? Put out as fact, immediately? What possible evidence value could videos of 'the' airplane, (that they obviously would already know about, since they have told the world it was a specific aircraft) have?

None.

They only plausible explanation for seizing the tapes would be to prevent the public from seeing what did or didn't hit the Pentagon.

Apart from the admissions of these three treasonous criminals (inept as it turns out, since they can't keep their lying mouths shut), the physical evidence and steel framed building fire (and one or more aircraft impacts too) precedence negates most of the OS too.

Never mind the circumstantial evidence, or the Bush family connections to the Bin Ladens, the Bush brother on the board of the firm that provided 'security' to the WTC, the upper half of the towers closed down, and occupants barred from entry for approx 6 weeks, due to 'renovations'.

And a whole host of other blatant reasons that all go into the mix that proves not only the American public, and most of your government were lied to, but the rest of the world were too.

I'm frankly amazed that these people are not, at the very least, rotting in a cell somewhere by now.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:50 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

A potential energy calculation is based on the ASSUMPTION that the MASS in question is free to fall the DISTANCE in question. That means the distance must be EMPTY.

psik

It's quite obvious to anyone that reads that thread that OWE, femr2, Major Tom, etc tried to teach you your errors.

Why demonstrate again HERE that you have no idea what the "P" in PE means, nor how it is applied and used while doing physics calculations?

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:56 PM
Besides the theoretical arguments supporting the hypothesis that intentional demolition, not fire, brought the Towers down, the huge volume of video evidence shows conclusively an array of specific details of the Towers' collapse that are wholly consistent with the particulars of intentional demolition. The first detail is the speed with which the Towers fell. Despite the huge amount of mass and material sitting underneath them, the tops of both Towers, like with Building 7, collapsed to the ground at close to free-fall speed. To put it more bluntly, if a massive crane hoisted the top 15 floors of the North Tower to the same height at which it sat on the morning of 9/11, and then released the top to fall unimpeded to the ground with nothing but air to block its way, it would have taken approximately 10 seconds to hit down. This is virtually the same speed it took the actual top 15 floors of the North Tower to collapse. With the entire in-tact, undamaged, unaffected 90 floors worth of core building sitting underneath it, somehow providing NO further resistance to the falling building than air itself. (Remember that the impact zone of the aircraft and the subsequent fire was from floor 90 up. No other part of the building could have possibly sustained any serious damage since heat and fire go up. And the government's official theory is that the top 15 floors essentially destabilized and failed, and its then unsupported weight began to pile drive downwardly onto the rest of the 90 as yet undamaged stories.)Somehow, in a gross violation of the laws of physics, the remaining 90 floors and core of the North Tower sitting under the damaged section of the building offered little more resistance to impede the speed of the Tower's collapse than air itself. This is another unequivocal impossibility. The only thing that can account for the speed of the Towers' collapse is controlled demolition - where cutter charges and explosives were placed throughout the core of the building, timed to explode and pop out sections of floors and beams to clear a path and create the vacuum that was necessary to account for the tumbling speed of the Twin Towers. Almost exactly like these firefighters surmised on the morning of September 11 before the story got officially rewritten.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:57 PM

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

The terminal velocity of concrete is 779.87 miles per hour.

The terminal velocity of steel is 1405.93 miles per hour.

I also notice that steel dropped from the top of the WTC towers would hit in 9.16 seconds after factoring the drag coeffecient of the air at sea level. You should check your source that told you that "air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height. "

Also I would like the source that said "air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height. " I would like to see what they say about the website I found to calculate the speed of fall and terminal velocity.

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:59 PM

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.

Yet another assertion.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

"OK...given all the parameters above, the fall time for a rigid upper block is 9.35 seconds. Free fall in a vacuum would be 8.73 seconds. Remember I took the bottom of the upper block to be 140 feet (42.7m) from the top so this is not to confuse with the total fall time.

So "free fall" in air appears to be about 7% longer than free fall in a vacuum for a drop of 374m."

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:01 PM

If I understand it correctly, this is the equivalent of lifting the whole building in its pristine state off the ground a sufficient height for it to attain terminal velocity when dropped, then dropping it. Otherwise it would not have been "free fall". In which case, I can imagine the result would be exactly as you described...

posted on May, 26 2010 @ 01:02 PM

What about the gravitational collapse when I dropped a cinderblock on a pop can. The pop can collapsed downward through the path of the greatest resistance at nearly free fall speed.

A cinderblock is not the same structurally as a very thin and lightweight (and not structurally very strong) pop can.

Your analogy would be more accurate, if you dropped a pop can on top of another pop can and observed the results...since this is analogous to what happened to the towers. The towers 'pancaking' as told by the OS, were impacted by themselves weren't they..

Following your cinderblock analogy, the towers would have to have been flattened by something in the order of 200 times more massive than themselves. Which is not the OS.

You see what i mean of course?

Whereas a pop can hitting another pop can is the same as the tower dropping on itself, same density, shape and material construction.

The most that would happen to the pop can, is the dropped one would bounce off the lower can. Possibly making a dent to the rim, but bouncing and falling off all the same.

10