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.

 

Physics of 9/11...

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


sorry, that actually came out as more harsh than i intended, i apologise. what i was trying to say, is that yes, there was alot of stored potential in the damaged part of the tower, and yes, it would damage the bottom part. but as the video demonstrated, the bottom blocks survive because the falling one destroys itself.

we're left with two blocks again, the bottom larger than the top. they collide with equal force, which one will survive? the larger one will, simply because the smaller one is destroyed faster.




posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by iamcpc
 



we're left with two blocks again, the bottom larger than the top. they collide with equal force, which one will survive? the larger one will, simply because the smaller one is destroyed faster.


This might be more accurate if the towers were solid blocks. The towers were, according to some sources (www.tms.org...), 95% air. They also were not solid blocks. They were pieces of steel that were welded and bolted together with a lot of empty space between them.

When the top 1/3rd of a buildings hits the bottom 2/3rds of a building with a force over 400 times greater (my source is on this post) than that of a 500 mile per hour 110 ton airplane (3.9 airplane impacts per floor) i don't expect anything to survive.

Imagine hitting each floor of the WTC with 3.9 airplanes. on crushing each wall and core support beams. What would be left?

A big pile of rubble.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Do you think it's "improbable" that the weight of the planes contributed to this "piledriver" theory...? 747's weigh - what - 150 tons? Not much in comparison to the building storeys, but when falling from above that's a lot of extra force.




I think it would not help collapse propogation.

However, collapse initiation would be a different story, IMHO. You'd have extra weight, sitting on a damaged floor. That would increase the amount of pull-in on the ext columns and destabilize them more.

Paper would have the weight, PLUS the extra fuel load.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

OK, it's plausible, but there's still the matter of this unknown "extra weight".




I believe his point is a bit more subtle than you're giving him credit for.

There's a lot more crazy cd theories floated out there by truthers. THIS one, while also improbable, at least has some basis in reality.

I'll rank some of these theories for you:

A) batpoo crazy - nukes, holograms, space beams

B) uneducated drivel - explosives, thermxte> freefall

C) educated drivel - limited cd for initiation>natural collapse that takes ~ 15 seconds

D) Plausible, but not probable nor substantiated - naturally occuring thermitic reactions, underestimated fuel (including paper) loads (which Dr Quintere also backs to some degree, since his criticism of the report is that NIST vastly underestimated the fuel loads)


What this points out is one of the obvious points about being a truther. The more outlandish and crazy a theory is, the more likely it is bound to be accepted as probable and/or possible to truthers.

Insanity is the only reason to explain this.



Thank you for explaining this so well.

I would rank those theories the exact same but only in regards to the twin towers. I have not yet begun researching WTC 7. I'm sure it will involve sifting through a lot of crap like the twin towers research has been so far.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

I would rank those theories the exact same


Actually, I do too.

I was being "nice".



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


i like how you labeled explosives, thermite, and freefall as "uneducated drivel", when thermite has been found, and freefall has been demonstrated many times.

freefall:

www.youtube.com...

thermite:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


it is just as valid an argument, even thought the internal structures of the buildings are frames. the "blocks" are made of the same material, and structured in the same way. the top and bottom pieces of the tower are of the same construction. apples to apples, oranges to oranges.



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by dudly
reply to post by jthomas
 


Not entirely true, there are many engineers that do not agree with the nist report. AE911truth.org has over 1200 engineers that have signed a petition to have a new investigation on the fact that the Nist report did not even look for evidence.



WOW 1200 of which how many are Architects
and HOW MANY are there WORLDWIDE that dont agree with the 1200, MANY TENS OF THOUSANDS



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

i like how you labeled explosives, thermite, and freefall as "uneducated drivel", ....... and freefall has been demonstrated many times.



That's cuz it is, sorry.

I see what catagory you have put yourself into though.

How special.......



posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


i like how you labeled explosives, thermite, and freefall as "uneducated drivel", when thermite has been found, and freefall has been demonstrated many times.

The twin towers did not free fall. Nice try. Try to not get all of your info from youtube. According to youtube pen and teller, michael jackson, the beatles, and the beach boys are all satanists.

www.plaguepuppy.net...

You can, very clearly, see debri falling at free fall speed next to the collapsing building.

Because the debri is free falling faster than the collapse (you know that it's falling faster than the collapse because the debri is falling next to undamaged, uncollapsed, portions of the buildings) then that is irrefutable evidence that shows that the twin towers collapsed SLOWER than free fall speed. Notice free falling debri falling below the collapse????


Why do i have to copy and paste this so many times?


1. I've found several, indepentant investigations, about the time that it took for the WTC towers to collapse which i've cited here. None of them say the towers collapsed in free fall speed. They ALL say that the towers collapsed SLOWER than free fall speed.

2. look at the picture

3. If the twin towers did collapse at free fall speed then EVERYONE would know they were demolished.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


How many would it take to convince you that there are unaswered questions?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
[edit on 28-6-2010 by dudly]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by dudly
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


How many would it take to convince you that there are unaswered questions?


When one person said that, because the towers collapsed at free fall speed, they were demolished I INSTANTLY had questions! The towers collapsing at free-fall speed would PROOVE that the twin towers were demolished because the collapse started at the middle of the building!!

After 15 hours of research i found out that the twin towers DID NOT collapse at free fall speed.

Now my unaswered question is:

Why do people keep saying the twin towers collapsed at free fall speed when they didn't?

If the towers collapsing at free fall speed indicates demolition then does the towers collapsing slower than free fall speed indiciate no demolition?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


To answer you question, to obtain perfect freefall speed during any demolition is not needed. There will always bee some resisitance during demolition, unless a nuke is used.

Also watching the towers come down there are points of free fall speed, and some points near freefall, the fact that there are points of free fall speed indidcate major loss of structure at points where no fire damage, or plane damage occoured.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dudly
reply to post by iamcpc
 


To answer you question, to obtain perfect freefall speed during any demolition is not needed. There will always bee some resisitance during demolition, unless a nuke is used.

Also watching the towers come down there are points of free fall speed, and some points near freefall, the fact that there are points of free fall speed indidcate major loss of structure at points where no fire damage, or plane damage occoured.



How come someone can determine the cause of a collapse of a building that was hit by an airplane and set on fire is explosives without even ATTEMPTING to determine how much damage was or was not done by the airplanes and fire?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dudly

How many would it take to convince you that there are unaswered questions?


Only truthers care about unanswered questions. Occasionally, us on the rational side will show you where the answers are. Eventually though, one becomes amused at the way that truthers don't listen.

If you want to convince someone with weight behind their opinion, you must show reason to doubt the accepted events.

This might include:

1- an engineering study that refutes high temperature creep in steel - one of the main causes of the collapse of 1 and 2.

2- an engineering study that refutes thermal expansion of the long span floor beam, with its insulation intact, that initiated the series of events that led to the collapse of 7.

3- finding photos of steel that show the copper residue that is a typical result of using linear shape charges.

4- finding photos of steel that show blast effects of ruptured steel.

5- finding photos of thermxte usage on the steel.

6- proving that there is technology that can make detonations silent.



The list goes on and on of the possibilities that are open to truthers that could sway opinion of real structural engineers.

But they don't, and we all know why.

Cuz evidence like that doesn't exist, and it never did.

This is why every point that truthers bring up gets shot down. Every time.......



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


i like how you labeled explosives, thermite, and freefall as "uneducated drivel", when thermite has been found, and freefall has been demonstrated many times.

freefall:

www.youtube.com...

thermite:

www.youtube.com...


I wonder why AE911Truth neglected to show the FULL collapse of WTC7 - that is to say, the bit that includes the east penthouse collapsing:
www.youtube.com...

Could it be because that messes with their precious timing methods, showing that it wasn't freefall?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Such silly arguments..freefall WAS documented in Bldg. 7. NIST admitted it.

If the Towers fell at SLIGHTLY LESS than freefall, it does NOT in any way, shape, or form negate the FACTS that confirm demolition.

Just to prove that temperatures far too high for ANY fuel based fires were evident on 9-11, read this:

911blogger.com...


From the professional engineer that witnessed the evidence:

" A structural engineer who was a member of the team assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers to investigate the World Trade Center site after 9/11 has described numerous phenomena indicating extremely high temperatures suffered by the WTC structural steel. This appears to be further evidence that high-temperature explosives, such as thermate, were used to bring down the towers."
Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. He flew to New York on September 19, 2001 to conduct a two-week reconnaissance of the collapsed towers, hoping to gain an understanding of how they'd come down. He was able to examine numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero. [1]

He said the towers were exceptionally well designed and built, describing the WTC as "the best-designed building I have ever seen." [2] Yet the structural steel had suffered unusual warping and other major damage:

•Astaneh-Asl said that steel flanges "had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin." [3]
•At a recycling center in New Jersey, he saw 10-ton steel beams from the towers that "looked like giant sticks of twisted licorice." [4] He showed the San Francisco Chronicle a "banana-shaped, rust-colored piece of steel" that had somehow "twisted like toffee during the terrorist attack." [5]
•He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns. He described the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, "If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted--it's kind of like that." He added, "That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot--perhaps around 2,000 degrees." [6]
•In an interview in 2007, Astaneh-Asl recalled, "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center." [7]
•He found a foot-long twisted shard of steel that was "like a piece of bread, but it was high-strength steel." He commented, "I haven't seen anything like this [before]." [8]
•He came across "severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes]." [9]
•The fireproofing that had been used to protect the WTC steel also showed evidence of extreme conditions. In some places it had "melted into a glassy residue." [10]
•Astaneh-Asl saw a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7--a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11, even though no plane hit it. "The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized." [11]

What part of " VAPORIZED " do you not understand? If ANT steel vaporized, that ALONE is proof positive or energy sources FAR more energetic than any fuel or gravity could POSSIBLY account for.

You can argue straw man nonsense all day long, but unless you can explain WHERE the energy came from that VAPORIZED steel, you are stuck in a corner you cannot escape from.

The DUSTIFICATION of the Towers is IMPOSSIBLE from a gravity driven event.

The VAPORIZATION OF STEEL is IMPOSSIBLE from a fuel fire and or gravity based event.

The OTHERWISE INEXPLICABLE phenomenon experienced by first responders is IMPOSSIBLE from only gravity driven events. ( EMP effects)

The FREEFALL descent admitted by NIST on Bldg. 7 is IMPOSSIBLE with only the energy of gravity and fire damage.

I could go on and on....but until you official story cultists can come up with LOGICAL and RATIONAL and scientifically defensible answers for these FACTS, all your petty sidetracking and arguing inconsequential issues that have NO bearing on the main points, no one that is a serious student of this issue can take you or your arguments seriously.

Explain the hard questions and hard facts and THEN we will see if your stand changes...if not it means a lot of work was put forth to convince people who refuse to be convinced....people who want to remain willfully ignorant...people who do not care about facts or logic...people who for some reason cannot accept facts.

I believe that it is a firmly established fact of psychology that a certain percentage of the public have personalities that do not allow them to see things that threaten their very foundations; they literally cannot link the facts and come to a logical conclusion because the RESULT of that acceptance would be so disturbing, so shocking, so upsetting to their preconceived notions that it would cause them to become depressed or worse.

My own father, after being shown irrefutable evidence that 9-11 is an inside job, told me that' even if it is true, I don't want to know about it...it is too upsetting and I don't need that at my age'. Of course I dropped the subject but it illustrates the fact that MANY people would find the idea of high government officials being guilty of treason and mass murder to be beyond their ability to deal with.

If some people lose faith in the very things that are supposed to be above evil and greed, their entire support system wirthin would fall apart. If the people who are supposed to protect us are actually more than willing to kill us to further their goals of power and money and other things, that means that NOTHING can be trusted...NO ONE is above being persuaded to commit horrid crimes.

I cannot explain in any other way the refusal of the Official Story faithfull to recognize plain facts. They see proof positive of vaporized steel, and instead of realizing that the Official Story cannot explain it, they simply deny that the evidence exists..in spite of it being in front of their eyes..or they insist that the professional that reported the evidence are not qualified, based only upon where the report was printed!!

The official story can ONLY be believed by FAITH; no evidence exists to suppot it.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by richierich


I believe that it is a firmly established fact of psychology that a certain percentage of the public have personalities that do not allow them to see things that threaten their very foundations; they literally cannot link the facts and come to a logical conclusion because the RESULT of that acceptance would be so disturbing, so shocking, so upsetting to their preconceived notions that it would cause them to become depressed or worse.


That is true for both truther and debunkers. Debunkers can't see that their very foundation could threaten them. Truthers can't see that their foundation could be so weak as to be damaged by a small group of people. Their foundation is so amazingly powerfull that it can only damage itself.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
The official story can ONLY be believed by FAITH; no evidence exists to suppot it.


What about the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities Northwestern and Perdue.


sources cited here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join