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: 17
10
share:

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:06 PM

Originally posted by LieBuster
"Is it possible for steel framed building to be hit with a 500 mile per hour 110-150 ton airplane and then get set on fire and collapse slower than the speed of gravity? "

Lets do the maths

i think it was a 100 tons and this was not dead weight due to the crimple zone on the plane so the energy would had taken two seconds to be obsorbed by the structure of the building.

lets say we have a 100mph wind hitting a 4m2 section of the building then that alone would produce a dead weight force of 1 ton on the building so lets times that by 63 for the width of the building and assume each floor is 4m high and times that by let say 50 floors because other buildings stop the wind on the lower floors.

63 X 50 = 3150 Tons dead weight and the building would take this without a window even falling out so i don't except something made so light as to fly like a bird realy accounted for much more then the 3-4 outer suport beans it took out.

While I appreciate your un-expert estimations about the force of winds. I'll call your attention to the study done my a team of experts at MIT.

John E. Fernandez
Assistant professor of archiecture building tech program MIT

Eduardo Kausel
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Tomasz Wierzbicki
professor of applied mechanics MIT

Liang Xue
Ph.D. Candidate of Ocean Engineering MIT

Meg Hendry-Brogan
Undergraduate stuid of ocean engineering MIT

Ahmed Ghoniem
professor of mechanical engineering MIT

Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

franz-josef ulm, esther and harold edgerton
associate professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

Yossi sheffi
Professor of civil & environmental engineering MIT

SOURCE: web.mit.edu...

I notice the chapter airplane impact damage.

"the core columns absorbed 1025MJ core E = , which is
52% of the total kinetic energy introduced by the aircraft. The total number of destroyed core columns is a ratio of the total energy available - core energy core E to the amount of energy required to fail a single core column. Depending which case considered in Table 2 will be valid, the number of destroyed core columns in South Tower will vary between minimum of 7 and maximum of 20."

"the predicted number of damaged core columns in the North Tower will vary between 4 and 12."

"we do believe that the primary damage suffered by the South Tower via the initial impact alone was severe enough to bring it down with very little outside help."

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:33 PM

Yes some good science and you didn't take into account the building colapsed from about 900ft up and not from the top which would had added more weight to your argument so lets agree it fell at 70% of free faill speed to be safe.

Now i would not know how to calculate the density of each floor but my understanding is we had the top 20% of the building dropping one floor (assume not resistance apart from air) hitting a mass four times greater then the conetic energy dispated by the impact serverly reduce the speed of the collapse.

we also need to allow for the cusion effect as each floor gives way so are we to beleive this offered next to no resitance compared to thin air.

Look at building in earth quake zone where a floor has given way then often you see the above floors have dropped down one whole floor and yet the building remains standing and sure these building dont weigh the same as the towers but then again they were not over engineered like the towers or had the surface area so it's fair to argue each of the 72 floors would had slown the speed down to a few MPH.

these buildings were taken down from the inside and that was the central core being cut using thermeite else the building would had fell sideways and thermite was found at the scene of the crime and melton metal was found in the basement and explans blast at and below ground level coming from the lifts and even eye witnesses and the media talk about bombs going off.

i can see if you built a building to high from bricks or steel reinforce concrrent that it could crumble under it's own weight but the properties of steel make it more incline to buckel sideways and not faill down into it's own footprint

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:49 PM

Originally posted by LieBuster

Yes some good science and you didn't take into account the building colapsed from about 900ft up and not from the top which would had added more weight to your argument so lets agree it fell at 70% of free faill speed to be safe.

Now i would not know how to calculate the density of each floor but my understanding is we had the top 20% of the building dropping one floor (assume not resistance apart from air) hitting a mass four times greater then the conetic energy dispated by the impact serverly reduce the speed of the collapse.

we also need to allow for the cusion effect as each floor gives way so are we to beleive this offered next to no resitance compared to thin air.

Look at building in earth quake zone where a floor has given way then often you see the above floors have dropped down one whole floor and yet the building remains standing and sure these building dont weigh the same as the towers but then again they were not over engineered like the towers or had the surface area so it's fair to argue each of the 72 floors would had slown the speed down to a few MPH.

these buildings were taken down from the inside and that was the central core being cut using thermeite else the building would had fell sideways and thermite was found at the scene of the crime and melton metal was found in the basement and explans blast at and below ground level coming from the lifts and even eye witnesses and the media talk about bombs going off.

i can see if you built a building to high from bricks or steel reinforce concrrent that it could crumble under it's own weight but the properties of steel make it more incline to buckel sideways and not faill down into it's own footprint

See the thing is that I didn't go to school for 8 years to build skyscrapers I don't believe that you did either. Me and you don't spend our entire lives teaching engineers the math and physics behind building skyscapers.

I believe, after reading the reports of independant teams of experts, that someone without a significant amount of education or experience with physics, contrustion, demolition or engineering is not nearly qualified to even speculate as to what caused the collapse of the WTC towers. They should stick to copying and pasting what the EXPERTS said.

Otherwise someone watches a youtube video claiming, free fall speeds, no steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire EVER and that it the speed of the collapse defies the laws of physics, and suddenly a 19 year old college dropout who works a t-mobile knows more about the collapse of the WTC towers than teams of experts who have spent 8 or more years of their lives studying engineering, physics, construction, or demolition.

Now you have a bunch of people who spent less than one year in highschool studying physics who all know more than the experts.

What really cooks my goose is that the experts disagree.

[edit on 27-5-2010 by iamcpc]

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:50 PM

Did not fall in its own footprint another MYTH!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 27-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 27-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

Again with the assertion that people who know 911 was the job of the government are delusional...Also my "rebuttal" is in my previous posts...

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:55 PM

Mr. WMD-2008 Iraq didn't have WMD's did they?
I have a reason for my "smart-*** remarks very solid reasons...

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 01:59 PM

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by Joey Canoli

Again with the assertion that people who know 911 was the job of the government are delusional...Also my "rebuttal" is in my previous posts...

I have to say this:

Someone who KNOWS 9/11 was the job of the government:

Is either 100% delusional or works for the government and was personally involved.

Someone who believes that the theory that 9/11 was the job of the government is possible (even probable):

0% delusional

It's one thing to support theories with evidence, eyewitnessess, and expert testimony. And then, based on the evidence, eyewitnessess and expert testimony decide that a theory is decently probable.

Statement A:
I believe based on the evidence, eyewitnessess, and expert testimony that it is possible that the 9/11 attacks were a job of the government.

Statement B:
I KNOW that the goverment was behind the 9/11 attacks.

my 100% un-expert opinion

Is it possible that the government was behind the 9/11 attacks?
YES.

Is it IMPOSSIBLE that the government was behind the 9/11 attacks?
NO.

Do I KNOW what caused the collapse of the WTC towers and the details behind those attacks.
HELL NO. Not even close!

[edit on 27-5-2010 by iamcpc]

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:07 PM

Go ahead, look at the interviews of people who were next to the building and firefighters who were in the basement and were blown back by the explosions...Go ahead, Yes people can be called delusional but I believe you and Mr. WMD are on the wrong side of the argument...

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:07 PM

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL

Mr. WMD-2008 Iraq didn't have WMD's did they?
I have a reason for my "smart-*** remarks very solid reasons...

See you make an assumption for what wmd stands for and you are wrong

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:09 PM

Hmm well it sounds a lot like that lie...
A bit off topic but what does it mean, then?

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:09 PM

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL

Go ahead, look at the interviews of people who were next to the building and firefighters who were in the basement and were blown back by the explosions...Go ahead, Yes people can be called delusional but I believe you and Mr. WMD are on the wrong side of the argument...

I have. That is why I can say there is a lot of eyewitnessess, expert testimony, and evidence that support those theories.

But unless there is overwhelming irrefutable proof I will never KNOW. Neither will anyone else unless they worked or are working for the government and are part of the coverup.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:15 PM

"It's one thing to support theories with evidence, "eyewitnessess", and expert testimony. And then, based on the evidence, "eyewitnessess" and expert testimony decide that a theory is decently probable."

So you have heard the testimony and you say that it's "one thing" and you still don't listen...That's what this seems like...

It should be common since by now and since 2002 I've been truly ashamed to be an american...

[edit on 27-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:25 PM

Thats a lot of names lets see what they say in the offical report
www.9-11commission.gov...

At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets. The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud. The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower.156

Thats right ten seconds so am i to beleive steel offer next to no resitance compared to air ?

You say 52% of the structual damage was to the central core and yet on the outside of the building only 3-4 beams were cut by the impact and the central core has 64 much thicker upright steel beans ? Would you care to explain this because one of the planes hit at an angle so much of the energy went out the side of the building as could be seen by the fireball.

Since you brough up a lot of names to suport your argument then let me bring up 1199 architectural and engineering professionals
cms.ae911truth.org...

maybe we should see what the architect who designed the buildings has to say about the planes

The building was constructed like a fly screen, with hundreds of interlocking steel beams. The designer of the towers Frank. A. DeMartini stated in an interview in January 2001, that WTC's 1 & 2 were over-engineered and would be able to sustain MULTIPLE HITS FROM A Boeing 707, a plane with not 2 but 4 engines, and which travel at a much faster cruising speed. Heres the interview: www.youtube.com...

You ignored the molton metal comeing out the side of the building and in the basement so i can only asume you don't have an anser to that one.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:29 PM

The molten metal was thermite, Thermite generates a massive degree of heat if "lit" properly...It's primarily used in welding to melt railroad tracks and so forth...

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:30 PM

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL

Go ahead, look at the interviews of people who were next to the building and firefighters who were in the basement and were blown back by the explosions...Go ahead, Yes people can be called delusional but I believe you and Mr. WMD are on the wrong side of the argument...

It is quite obvious that you want to believe in an " inside job " conspiracy.

All the evidence indicates, and the burns casualties confirms, that any explosions in the lobby and basement were as a result of jet fuel down the elevator shafts which was ignited.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:30 PM

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL

"It's one thing to support theories with evidence, "eyewitnessess", and expert testimony. And then, based on the evidence, "eyewitnessess" and expert testimony decide that a theory is decently probable."

So you have heard the testimony and you say that it's "one thing" and you still don't listen...That's what this seems like...

It should be common since by now and since 2002 I've been truly ashamed to be an american...

I do listen. That's why I say things like there is a significant amount of evidence, eyewitnessess, scientific analsis, and expert testimony that supports those (truther) theories. That is why I say those (truther) theories are possible!

I would say we both agree 100% on that statement but i'm not sure. You may disagree that they are theories and believe that they are proven facts. In that case I cite all the experts who support the alternate theories and say I can't say that theory A proven fact when so many experts disagree and support theory B or C or D or E.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:32 PM

Hmm sorry if I insult you but I can't dignify that with a response that wouldn't insult you further...
therefore, I won't.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:33 PM

I responded to your message like I said I'm happy someone is looking at both sides...

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:56 PM

"I believe, after reading the reports of independant teams of experts, that someone without a significant amount of education or experience with physics, contrustion, demolition or engineering is not nearly qualified to even speculate as to what caused the collapse of the WTC towers. They should stick to copying and pasting what the EXPERTS said. "

Well yes i agree and this is why i rely upon Newton laws and what Einstein says and i apply my own observations and extracts from the offical story to present my argument.

i'm no fireman either but i have a feeling that given all the resorces available to the president and the whitehouse that they could had put the fire out at the petagon in a lot less than three days.

i'm no mathmatician so don't ask me about the chances of being a war criminal and having a son and granson that become presidents of the USA and having another granson runs security on the twin towers on 9/11.

i'm not good at accounts but i don't beleive you double insure a buiding that you brought and insured just a three months before they fell over but i can work out the \$2.3tr that was reported missing the day before 9/11 would build you 500 ground zero's

i'm not good with finance but i don't beleive you can short the airlines to go down before 9/11 and not be traced later.

i'm not a lier and claim WMD are in iraq and so stupid as to try and pull the same stunt eight years later and point the finger at Iran whilst ignoring iserael and its nukes.

i'm not fool neither.

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 03:01 PM
The Towers exploded into dust. It is beyond debate. The size of the dust was so small that the energy required to reduce virtually all of the concrete into dust could NOT come from gravity. Period. If you believe that the official story is true, must also believe that the laws of physics are changeable. According to whatever the perpetrators desired in the way of destruction, we observe both Towersblast UPWARD and OUTWARD, hurling major beams far away.

This CANNOT happen from a gravity driven collapse. CANNOT. We see vast plumes of dust and smoke rise above the Towers as they explode. Both Towers erupt...there is NO distortion, buckling, shifting, off center dropping...nothing but sheer explosive force. Even the steel CORE turned to DUST...we have all seen the pictures of the SPIRE, and how it stood for a moment and then simply turned to dust and blew away!!!

And you believers claim that office fires at upper levels caused the CORE structure far below to dustify? How could anyone have the nerve? It would take someone with no shame to try and get someone else to accept the nonsense that we are told happened that day.

The facts alone prove all that is needed to know. The official story is a shameful and blatant lie, and only the uneducated or dishonest or intel shill could dare to claim that the official story is true....it is SO apparent that it staggers the sound mind to realize that we still have people who fail to see reality and dismiss all the evidence...they still believe that all these ' coincidences' and ' anomalies' are somehow unimportant and that Uncle Sam would never harm his people....wake up.

The government is BEYOND corrupt and into treason and murder when they want to do so...and they get away with it.

new topics

top topics

10