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.

 

Theory: Device that took down WTC7 caused literal implosion

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I was just looking at NIST's measurements of WTC7's acceleration. For example:


NIST NCSTAR 1A at 45 states: [November 2008]

The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2 (9 .81 m/s2 ), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g.


www.the-peoples-forum.com...






An acceleration of 9.81m/s^2 doesn't reflect drag having an effect.

Drag is resistance provided by air, so this implies there was no resistance provided by air during this period. If there was, it was not able to be measured by NIST.

Sound is caused by air pressure waves traveling in the line of force that created them.


So, of course I have no evidence of this, but theoretically, a device that could cause a rapid inward suction of gases rather than the typical rapid outward expansion of gases, could both reduce or negate air resistance as well as contain pressure waves that would cause too much noise. The pressure wave effect caused by rapid suction inward towards the building would result in low-frequency negative pressure waves to ripple outwards, which would sound like a deep boom.

Any criticisms, besides the fact that I have no evidence any such technology exists?

[edit on 11-5-2010 by bsbray11]




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
This is one avenue of WTC7 which I have looked into and left alone as have pretty much every other CTr that i've seen of other than you...

We simply have no evidence other than time. Time proves that there perhaps was more than conventional exothermic reactions being used (nano thermite/shaped charges etc) however the nature of which beyond conventional means is purely conjecture. To hazard a guess I'd say a tesla based scalar electromagnetic weapon was used in conjunction with thermal and shaped cutting charges. Tesla weapons can be used in many modes, one of which is a cold explosion or 'implosion', in conjuction with a seperate metal weakening quantum waveform.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostR1der
We simply have no evidence other than time.


Time is just the medium everyone is investigating through. People will still have to work at it.



To hazard a guess I'd say a tesla based scalar electromagnetic weapon was used in conjunction with thermal and shaped cutting charges. Tesla weapons can be used in many modes, one of which is a cold explosion or 'implosion'


I wasn't thinking of Tesla but I was thinking of an EM device, because after OKC people started talking about the same thing. There were witnesses at OKC, for example, who said right before the explosion, all the hair on their arms and all over their body stood on end as if a massive static electric pressure was being created in the air. I suppose the idea being to create a massive potential difference between the imploding device itself and all of the surrounding area.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I think they would have wanted to keep it simple, in this case. Not sure if this was the time to test drive scalar weapons. That will be used in the personal brainwashing (or die please) phase. It is possible that a thermobaric weapon was used. A vacuum would not be noticed as much as an 'explosion', but it is still an explosion. This way, instead of debris flying all over town, causing embarrassing contradictions, all the evidence (or lack of) could be sucked into the burning hole in the ground, purified (melted), and sold for scrap, neat and clean.

What I find most disturbing is the amazing ability that mere Earthly powers have at eradicating the idea, among those who hold the charge, that there is a conscious Universe (God) and that they will somehow be made to pay in the end. Classic satan. Have these men never lived to see God, even among their more childish days? I do understand war and the need for them, but I abhor those 180 degree lies that our jewish media are so adept at.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by davidmann]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Drag is resistance provided by air, so this implies there was no resistance provided by air during this period. If there was, it was not able to be measured by NIST.



You mean, of course, there was no resistance given by the air..... being forced out of the building's volume, right?

This is a much different question determining how fast an ext panel from the towers should have fallen from a height of 1000'. There was no "front" to a falling object.

IOW, your incredulity has no validity here.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You mean, of course, there was no resistance given by the air..... being forced out of the building's volume, right?


Actually the whole "air being forced out" thing requires energy from the falling building. I realize you haven't had physics but try to think about these things before you post.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Actually the whole "air being forced out" thing requires energy from the falling building.


How much?

Show us your awesome physics knowledge.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
Actually the whole "air being forced out" thing requires energy from the falling building.


How much?

Show us your awesome physics knowledge.


It's already been done:


Drag force on an object is given by the equation

Fd = 0.5*Cd*p*A*v2
= bv2

b is a constant where,

Cd is the drag-coefficient of the object, a dimensionless constant dependent on its shape and determined empirically. The air in the individual floors of the building would move with and can be considered one unit with the structure and therefore ignored in the calculation. Only the bottom-most floor at any one point on the collapse would experience air resistance as it must push air out of the way in order to impact the ground. The drag co-efficient for a long flat plate is 1.98[1] and will be used in this case for simplicity sake.

p is the density of air (assumed near sea level) 1.223Kg/m3

A is the area of the object normal to flow. NIST cites the area of each floor as 2,000,000 ft2 = 185 806.08m2

Therefore,
b = 0.5 * 1.98 * 1.223 * 185 806.08 = 224968.4274816

An object reaches terminal velocity when the drag force acting on the object in the negative equals the force applied to it in the positive, in this case gravity.

Hence at terminal velocity Fd = bv2 = mg
=> VT = SQRT(mg/b)

No figures are available for the mass of WTC7 that I can find, so I will make a very rough estimate based on other published estimates of the mass of WTC1 (5 x 108 Kg). WTC7 was 0.45 times the height of WTC1 and covered comparable floor area, however since there was less steel used in the construction of WTC7, I'll use an arbitrary figure of about a third, placing the mass of WTC7 at 1.7 x 108 Kg

VT
= SQRT(1.7 x 108 * 9.8 / 224968.4274816)
= 86.0551195 m/s

Velocity at time (t) is given by v(t) = VT tanh (gt/VT)

Velocity at time 4.757s
= 86.0551195 * tanh(9.8*4.757/86.0551195)
= 42.53670521674826m/s

Average acceleration across this time
= v/t
= 42.53670521674826/4.757
= 8.94m/s2

The final figure for theoretical collapse acceleration rate of WTC7 in complete free fall in atmosphere and at sea level is 8.94m/s2, which is only a little above the actual observed 8.71m/s2 acceleration rate arrived at from analysis of the CBS footage and using the Emporis height measurement. From this we can imply that the structure provided a negative acceleration, i.e resistive force of approximately 0.23m/s2 to the gravitational collapse.


www.studyof911.com...


This is an estimate, but the order of magnitude indicates that if a similar amount of drag were actually present, NIST would not be able to accurately cite the acceleration at 9.81m/s^2 to 3 significant digits like they have. They cite gravitational free-fall to hundredths of a m/s^2 while the drag has an effect at least on the order of tenths of a m/s^2.

If anyone else here understands physics, engineering notation and significant figures, please also try to explain this to Joey so I won't have to. I really hate babysitting these people.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I've already read that.

Why would he calculate the drag of the building in freefall through the atmosphere, since that didn't happen?

I note that you were unable to provide your own work, just a cut/paste job........



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Why would he calculate the drag of the building in freefall through the atmosphere, since that didn't happen?


So you admit there was somehow no air resistance to the falling building.



I note that you were unable to provide your own work, just a cut/paste job........


It's all jibberish to you so what's the difference?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

So you admit there was somehow no air resistance to the falling building.



No, I've proven that you have no basis to make statements about air resistance from the building.

And that when you're asked an uncomfortable question, your preferred response is..... no response at all, but instead we get your audition for your local ballet, what with all that spinning and dancing you seem to enjoy.

IOW, yet another argument from incredulity and gullibility.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by Joey Canoli]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The air in the individual floors of the building would move with and can be considered one unit with the structure and therefore ignored in the calculation.


Agreed.


Only the bottom-most floor at any one point on the collapse would experience air resistance as it must push air out of the way in order to impact the ground. The drag co-efficient for a long flat plate is 1.98[1] and will be used in this case for simplicity sake.


Which is where the whole exercise goes off the rails, since it assumes an intact flat plate. If he's going to assume this, then he needs to disprove the internal collapse - as indicated by the penthouses, etc - first. the internal collapse proves that there was no intact plate.

Interestingly enough though this gives you and your immense physics knowledge a place to start to figure out how this applies to the towers/window/squib thing.

I also find it interesting how truthers will feebly try and debunk the above issue by complaining about how air can be escaping from the top, and totally ignore the same thing here in 7.

Interesting, but understandable, given the cognitive dissonance displayed by many in the movement.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The amount of drag due to air would likely be within the error of measurement. You would have to show significant loss to postulate an implosion. If the building is collapsing straight down, the only drag will be shear forces on the outer skin. The geometry is not one of a freely falling body in air. You would have to include the compression of air within the collapsing building. The burst point of windows breaking due to compression of air [the so-called "squibs"] is low enough [a few psi] so as to not require much PV work which leads me to the "error-bar" conclusion.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The amount of drag due to air would likely be within the error of measurement. You would have to show significant loss to postulate an implosion. If the building is collapsing straight down, the only drag will be shear forces on the outer skin. The geometry is not one of a freely falling body in air. You would have to include the compression of air within the collapsing building. The burst point of windows breaking due to compression of air [the so-called "squibs"] is low enough [a few psi] so as to not require much PV work which leads me to the "error-bar" conclusion.


Indeed. Bsbray11 is unwilling to consider the compression of air as being any factor at all in the collapses of WTC 1,2 and 7. The volume of air on each floor of WTC 1 and 2 was on the order of 385,000 cubic feet and the collapse fronts were moving at approximately 100 mph toward the end of the collapses meaning that massive volume of air had to be expelled from each floor wherever it could in around one-tenth of a second as the collapse fronts of debris hammered down.

I've invited bsbray11 to calculate what that range of psi might be under those conditions and the resultant velocity given those conditions, and given his claim of being rather an expert in physics, but he has refused.

Messing around with physical reality is usually dangerous to one's deeply held conspiracy beliefs.


[edit on 11-5-2010 by jthomas]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Now bear in mind my knowledge of physics is minimal and I've researched very little on the CD of the towers.

But JT, I have a quick question, reading your post, the question comes to mind...Why didn't we see a window blow out and expel that jet of smokey or dust filled air(commonly referred to as squibs.) out of every floor window? Instead of just one every(what ten to twenty) floors ahead of the collapse wave.

Also, it seems as if the building was being unzipped on each corner of the building and leaving the corners intact for longer than the middle(between the corners) of the buildings. Your saying the floors were still collapsing pancake style ahead of the visible destruction?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Those literal explosions are much more damaging than the metaphorical ones.

It's the awful alliteration analogies aiming across all that really both me though.

Ant they illiterate gramer gnatsees.

Also on topic, have any of you factored in the underground area of the structure and it's airways and sanitation outlets into your equations?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
"Messing around with physical reality is usually dangerous to one's deeply held conspiracy beliefs."

Dude, being identified as a quisling propagandist after a regime change is dangerous to one's prosperity, health, freedom and career.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join