It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Did you pick him at random?
Because when I randomly pulled out a few AE911 members most were kitchen designers or interior decorators. Several were unemployed, including one whose only building design had been a temporary shed made out of hay bales.
Not really. As I posted earlier, you can simulate the behavior without explosives. You still get the footprint example.
You demo comparison is not to scale. The building is of a different material and a different size.
In a demo, the outside does not remain intact.
Actually, the faster you shoot something the more force it excerpts.
Momentum is what I am talking about. It is the amount of force per seconds.
The force was constantly increasing as it fell.
As to the pentagon, its the largest office building by floor size. Kind of hard to miss.
ok so if we say the government blew up these buildings why on earth would they do something like that...
but really look at all the united states goes through just to keep collateral damage at an ultimate low...
maybe we shouldn't be looking at the government...
It was a similar enough size to be a valid comparison. What makes you say it is a different material?
No. Because in a demo you have pieces. In pancaking, the structure fails and a lot is preserved. WTC was the later.
The building on the right is a 15-17 story small brick-iron Le Corbusier styled apartment
I mean, if you change the rate of time and the scale of image, you can make anything seem like its going at any speed.
And it did not remain very intact.
As to your physics, that's with closed unites in motion. Basically, pool balls. We are talking about foundation built and secured item A smashed by falling item B. Its velocity affects its force.
F=ma. Increase the mass, you have increased force.
Increase the velocity, you have increased force because velocity is a contributor to acceleration.
Drop something on a scale and it weighs more than if you lay it on the scale.
This increased force applied downward due to velocity. That is basic physics. Failure to recognize that is troubling.
More velocity, more momentum. More momentum, more newtons x seconds. That's more force.
How did I reach this conclusion? Meteorites make larger craters the faster they go. Pretty simple physics.
Penn. planed seemed to take it up a notch. The memorized the angle perhaps to turn?
NIST admitted free fall. There is no dispute over the rate of acceleration building 7 achieved.
The intact wall sections of WTC7 in the photos you linked to appear to only be intact for about the height of the rubble pile, as one would expect.
LOL the physics do not change just because we are not talking about the textbook pool balls.
Originally posted by Titan Uranus
Seriously have you watched wtc 7 fall? Not even a huh? thats odd, it was hardly on fire and abracadabra gone (oh but wait I've heard it argued that it was an inferno and oh the debri OH THE DEBRI!!!).
I don't know why we waste each others time on these topics
I did buy into the official explanation ... until I looked at it and thought about it, I ain't goin back. I'm sure there are reasons why intelligent people like yourself and others attempt to convince yourselves that 'theres nothin to see here' just a fine set of miraculous circumstances all happened to occur on one day each with a wonderously elaborate and laborious structural explanation that can let us ignore everything that points to what the eyes saw, and thats a controlled demolition.
I reiterate you saw 3 miracles of physics and engineering that day, I saw 3 buildings demolished quite professionaly by murderous terrorists. Both our theories have supporters. Yours call mine crazy, mine call yours deluded.
Forgive my lack of confidence in government organizations.
It is inheritably unstable if some of the parts are removed. Somebody got the supposedly smart idea that the parts of a building should equal the whole. That if any part is removed, the structure loses all value.
They are intact for how they fell. Pulled down towards the center of the building.
A demo reduces a building to small pieces and large iron rods.
A structural failure without the air blast from an explosion gently falls down into itself as the WTC 7 did.
Yes they do. Pool balls do not have a massive foundation holding them together. And if you drop a pool ball onto one, it bounces up. WTC is not going to bounce up.
Tower is not made to support falling tower onto itself.
Big rock hits tower, tower falls down. The big rock is the part of the tower that falls.
There's not much more to that.
You can try the same with proper stimulated materials.
They are made to support people.
Yes things do decelerate, but that does not remove the fact that it is a falling 100 million kg massive rock.
I am not going to stand by my previous math because, again, I'm sick and it's 2 am. But I am going to stand by the basic concept.
For the meteorite, for example. It could be traveling at 1000 mph. Doesn't matter if it is decelerating at a few miles per hour. That is still massive force hitting the ground.
Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Well I guess that says something about what some people claim to UNDERSTAND about engineering.
That is the trouble witha lot of people with degrees. They just memorized the equations.
Why do you have such a resentment of people who hold engineering degrees? In my structural exams we took the design codes in with us. Remembering pages of equations was not required, understanding how to use them was.
When the plane hit the south tower it deflected 15 inches. How much of the plane's kinetic energy went into that deflection and subsequent four minute oscillation? How can the damage to the core be computed withou knowing the energy lost in the deflection? How can that be computed without knowing the distribution of mass?
Believe it or not 15 inches is not a large deflection for a structure that height. Some can deflect up to 40 inches under high winds alone.
The degreed EXPERTS seem to be not raising obvious issues for a NINE YEAR OLD event.
What may be an "obvious" issue to someone who is uneducated in structural engineering is a non-issue to an educated and informed degree holder.
Originally posted by dR. kNOWITALL
reply to post by mnemeth1
There are many, many more engineers that know it wasn't an inside job...If you had bothered to read any such testimonials, you would know that it was NOT an inside job. Flimsy and downright ignorant statements may say it was, but it simply was not. It. was. not. an. in.side. job. the. end.
The physical scientists (beyond those already mentioned) include:
· Dr. A. K. Dewdney, professor emeritus of mathematics and physics, University of Western Ontario.
· Dr. Timothy E. Eastman, Consultant, Plasmas International, Silver Spring, Maryland.
· Dr. Mark F. Fitzsimmons, senior lecturer in organic chemistry, University of Plymouth.
· Dr. David L. Griscom, former research physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory; principal author of 100 papers in scientific journals; fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
· Dr. Jan Kjellman, research scientist in nuclear physics and nanotechnology, École Polytechnique Federale, Lausanne.
· Dr. Herbert G. Lebherz, professor emeritus, Department of Chemistry, San Diego State University.
· Dr. Eric Leichtnam, professor of mathematics and physics, University of Paris.
· Dr. Terry Morrone, professor emeritus, Department of Physics, Adelphi University.
· Dr. John D. Wyndham, former research fellow, California Institute of Technology.147
With regard to architects and engineers: In December 2006, when Chomsky issued his suggestion, there were few if any architects and engineers who had publicly questioned the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center. But in January, 2007, architect Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), began Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and by now its membership includes over 1,200 professional architects and engineers.
Here are a few of the architects:
· Daniel B. Barnum, AIA fellow; founder of the Houston AIA Residential Architecture Committee.
· Bertie McKinney Bonner, M. Arch; AIA member; licensed architect in Pennsylvania.
· David Paul Helpern, AIA fellow; founder of Helpern Architects.
· Cynthia Howard, M. Arch; licensed architect in Maine and Massachusetts; past president, AIA’s New England Chapter.
· David A. Johnson, PhD, internationally known architect and city planner; chaired the planning departments at Syracuse and Ball State universities; former president of the Fulbright Association of the United States.
· Kevin A. Kelly, AIA fellow; author of Problem Seeking: An Architectural Programming Primer, which has become a standard textbook.
· Anne Lee, M. Arch, AIA member; licensed architect in Massachusetts.
· Dr. David Leifer, coordinator of the Graduate Program in Facilities Management, University of Sydney; former professor at Mackintosh School of Architecture.
· Paul Stevenson Oles, fellow of the AIA, which in 1989 called him “the dean of architectural illustrators in America”; co-founder of the American Society of Architectural Perspectivists.
· David A. Techau, B. Arch., MS; AIA member; licensed architect in Hawaii.148
Here are a few of the engineers:
· John Edward Anderson, PhD; professor emeritus, Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota; licensed Professional Engineer (PE).
· Robert Bowman, PhD; former head, Department of Aeronautical Engineering, US Air Force Institute of Technology; director of Advanced Space Programs Development (“Star Wars”) under Presidents Ford and Carter.
· Ronald H. Brookman, MS Eng; licensed Professional Civil and Structural Engineer in California
· Dwain Deets, former Director for Research Engineering and Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, which awarded him the NASA Exceptional Service Award.
Joel Hirschhorn, PhD; former professor, Metallurgical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison; former staff member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment.
· Richard F. Humenn, licensed PE (retired); senior Project Design Engineer, World Trade Center electrical system..."
I realise the ramifications of planes and fires not bringing down the building are too much for some. It is hard for some people to not have faith in any government.
Originally posted by benoni
Looks to me like the "trusters" had a meeting and decided to use a medical analogy to argue their "point of view"....urologists, neuro's, GP's......
Interesting...I like the way you guys use creative thinking in an attempt to sell your story....
Creativity is needed when justifying the PHYSICS DEFYING COLLAPSES ON 9/11....