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.
Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by Soloist
Until then, riddle me this - Why are you feigning neutrality and open-mindedness, against the irremovable backdrop of your former out-and-out hostilities towards the OP and Dr Jones on this thread?
Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by bsbray11
You might as well just say, "I don't believe him because he's a "truther"
Whatever floats your boat.
Funny how you guys are the exact same way...
We have side a vs. side b, neither trusts the other. I don't see why everyone is so afraid of a neutral 3rd party handling the matter in a proper, verifiable way.
Generalization of Differential Equation of Progressive Collapse
The gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower must consist of two phases—the crush-down,
followed by crush-up (Fig. 1 bottom), each of which is governed by a different differential
equation (Baˇzant and Verdure 2007, pp. 312-313). During crush-down, the moving upper part
of tower (C in Fig. 1 bottom), having a compacted layer of debris at its bottom (zone B),
is crushing the lower part (zone A) with little damage to itself. During crush-up, the moving
upper part A of tower is being crushed by the compacted debris B resting on the ground.
The separation crush-down and crush-up phases is justified by the condition of dynamic
equilibrium of compacted layer B; see Fig. 2(f) in Baˇzant and Verdure 2007. It shows that
force F c applied by layer B onto the lower part must exceed force F 0 c applied by layer B onto the
upper part by an amount equal to the weight W B of the accreting debris layer B. Thus, since
the strength difference R c − R0 c between the lower and upper parts at the contacts with layer B
is either zero or less than W B , only the lower part can be getting crushed. If random fluctuation
of column strength with a certain standard deviation s R is taken into account, the strength
difference R c − R0 c can be positive, allowing the upper part to be getting crushed temporarily.
But since W B is growing rapidly from story to story, it will exceed (R c − R0 c ) after only a few
stories, regardless of the s R -value. After that, the upper part cannot get crushed until impact
on the ground (except if the strength increase in passing from one story to the next would
exceed R c − R0 c , which, however, does not appear to be the case).
So at the start of the collapse, you have the weight of the upper floors. After "n" tenths of a second you have that weight plus an additional floor, then that weight plus two additional floors and so on and so on as time progresses, moving downwards at 9.81 metres per second, per second.
Not only that, but the floors were not designed to take that weight falling on to them.
Concrete Pulverization
Twin Towers' Concrete Turned to Dust in Mid-Air
A striking feature of the Twin Towers' destruction was the pulverization of most of the concrete into gravel and dust before it hit the ground. This is evident from the explosive mushrooming of the towers into vast clouds of concrete as they fell, and from the fact that virtually no large pieces of concrete were found at Ground Zero, only twisted pieces of steel. 1 Estimates put the size of the particles, which also included gypsum and hydrocarbons, in the ten- to 100-micron range. 2
In trying to come to terms with what actually happened during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the biggest and most obvious problem that I see is the source of the enormous amount of very fine dust that was generated during the collapses. Even early on, when the tops of the buildings have barely started to move, we see this characteristic fine dust (mixed with larger chunks of debris) being shot out very energetically from the building. During the first few seconds of a gravitational fall nothing is moving very fast, and yet from the outset what appears to be powdered concrete can be seem blowing out to the sides, growing to an immense dust cloud as the collapse progresses.
The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.
Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. [color=gold]Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the concrete.
Both reports of workers at Ground Zero and photographs of the area attest to the thoroughness of the pulverization of the concrete and other non-metallic solids in the towers. 3 An examination of our extensive archives of images of Ground Zero and its immediate surroundings reveals no recognizable objects such as slabs of concrete, glass, doors, or office furniture. The identifiable constituents of the rubble can be classified into just five categories:
• [color=gold]pieces of steel from the towers' skeletons
• pieces of aluminum cladding from the towers' exteriors
• unrecognizable pieces of metal
• pieces of paper
• dust
Despite the presence of 400,000 cubic yards of concrete in each tower, the photographs reveal almost no evidence of macroscopic pieces of its remains.
When the so called "1,200+ expert scientists" back claims like "there were pyroclastic clouds/flows from the explosions" it shows how delusional and ill informed these people are...
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I don't trust the government, heck I have spoken ardently against things they have done, but I also know that delusions and false claims don't help with the real things going on, it just detracts people who can see that the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory has become an obsession based on delusions, and misrepresentations.
Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
Go and organise a peer-reviewed refutations of Dr Jones' work, get it published, then we'll see if he's wrong.
Until then, riddle me this - Why are you feigning neutrality and open-mindedness, against the irremovable backdrop of your former out-and-out hostilities towards the OP and Dr Jones on this thread?
Originally posted by Soloist
That is simply fail "truther logic". Once again, get a neutral 3rd party independent team and lab to do the proper procedures and tests, then we can talk about it. Until then, the only people that will buy into this are truthers who already believe it anyway. If you're so confident Jones is correct, then you should not be afraid of having it verified!
Originally posted by bsbray11
Basically anyone who disagrees with you has an agenda and you don't trust them.
We get your point here already Soloist. If it doesn't match up with the official government reports, you're not going to give it the time of day.
Originally posted by Soloist
Originally posted by bsbray11
Basically anyone who disagrees with you has an agenda and you don't trust them.
Sound familiar?
It should.
We get your point here already Soloist. If it doesn't match up with the official government reports, you're not going to give it the time of day.
You have apparently NOT gotten my point. But I guess that's to be expected.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Then what is your point? Oh yeah, that you want this work reviewed by a "neutral" party that aren't "truthers" and disagree with "truthers." Yeah, you can't get any more "neutral" than that.