It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Gravity Can't Do This!

page: 26
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:18 AM
reply to post by Cassius666

I have asked this before without success of course, can you show these images or videos that show floor trusses being ejected or outside the perimeter of the building? And how did you determine from said images or videos that the majority of floor trusses were ejected?

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:39 AM
reply to post by psikeyhackr

have you ever closed a door in a house and the air cause another door in the house to close? Ever squeeze an inflated ziplock bag?

I think a lot of these projectiles are from windows being blown out due to the pressure change.. the air is essentially squeezed out of the floors by the falling levels. I'm not even a debunker really and I've never understand why people didn't see that.

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:43 AM
reply to post by ANOK

What is the point of this question? It has to be at least x2. It is the same for static or dynamic loads, so what is your point?

Really? Impact? You think the designers designed for impact load on truss seat? You have a lot to learn.

But again you are not paying attention to my point. Regardless of loading, or trusses, or whatever, 15 concrete and steel panned floors can not crush 95. Even if you were to take 15 floors, and drop them from 100ft., they still can't 'crush' 95 floors. Simple physics explains this, equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws, you keep failing to address.

But again you fail to understand that no one is obligated to justify your poor word choice. The 15 floors struck the lower floors and a number of things occured - first and foremost the truss seats were overwhelmed by the impact loading for which they were not designed. Then things started to break and fall apart. Crushed? Broken and subject to further breaking - yes. Your lack of knowledge with regards to physics is not the basis for a conspiracy.

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:56 AM
reply to post by -PLB-

You can see it quite nicely on this vid at 2:38 where is a nice closeup. Notice the "Squib of smokes" attribuited to compressed air being ejected due to crashing floors BEFORE the collapse. Notice the same squib of smokes in the top section as it comes down. And you can see some of the trusses being ejected.

Not to mention that in PAC the need of an "pearl harbour like event" was expressed, but I am sure its just a conincidence fate delivered just that, when plans had been drawn up to go in Aghanistan.
edit on 1-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 10:23 AM
reply to post by Cassius666

I don't see any trusses ejected, let alone the majority. I see dust and small sections of the perimeter columns. Maybe you can outline a couple of trusses with a color so I know what you are talking about. But for a moment lets assume you positively identified one or more trusses, how did you determine from there that the majority of the trusses ejected?
edit on 1-9-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by -PLB-

Objects flew as far as WTC 7 apparently. Heavy trusses have been ejected wide and far. We can indeed see that in the videos. But 9/11 deniers have a tendency to see something else in the videos than everybody else.

Trusses? I think you are mistaken. What was thrown were the exterior columns as the collapse pushed them out, when they were freestanding after the floors disconnected and fell down. The exterior columns were pushed out and they behaved like tall trees. The towers were over 1000ft tall. That means the debris can fall up to 1000 feet away. Have you ever wondered why a building is going to collapse, or there is a threat of collapse, they clear an area twice the height of the building? Be sure to read up on firefighter training and their rules and practices, including structural failures and threats of collapse.

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:02 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

Soory gen...your statment is only partly true....they do that with the...listen...the assumption that the building could.....listen really might be hard to digest....IN CASE THE BUILDING.........listen now.....TOPPLES,tilts,leans,sways,rotates......all the things one might expect to occur in a method of unknown go read up on perimeter clearence of areas when a CD is under taken......precautions are still there but the perimeter clearence is way less.

don't you ever get tired of feeding out rubbish and expecting people to know this discussion has been going for ages ...the same points get dragged up....yet you wilkll call truthers nuts,ridiculous, and paint people with the same tarnished brush that we think some psycho protoplasm of illusional aircraft and empty voids of a building that was so flimsily constructed yet happily was one of the greatest structures built at the time happily stood for four decades.

not one of you have explained what happened to the core...yet in the sauret video that was posted shows the antena....listen...THE ANTENA was the first section falling before the block even moved.....yet nope.....lets just ignore that shall we....not one of you can say why the core compressed down with this mysterious pancake that you like to parade...yet the very NIST report says the floors did not lets not get confused here shall we......

The Bazant Zhou reports use a made up progressive collapse theory...NOT PANCAKING......hmmm confused here...which one do you support....come on....make it keep going on about how the floors you must subscribe to the pancaking theory....

so come on ......stop with the CR"* and show what you think...then i am sure it could be ripped apart quite brave and show your OWN just shot your own foot with such a ridiculous statement.....this was a straight down collapse for the most part....and yes debris would be expelled over good matter how the structure collapsed.....

did the twin towers rotate and topple like one might expect in a UNEVEN they didn't even though both towers showed signs of tilting yet rotation in both cases arrested...WHY?

there is only one plausible reason from the lower section of the buildings was removed....but not one little bit of this explains building 7's collapse....and i know you will go on about fires as you have at length in the past....cry me a the fires burned so hot and sooooo evenly and they cause simultaneous failure then hey we have hit a come put it on the line here...without a bunch of litter in between.

from what i read of posts....the towers suffered pancaking of the floors.....
buidling seven suffered some collateral damage from the towers collapse and then suffered a extremely hot UNIFORMED fire in which the colapse was initiated.

come on lay it on the line and tell us your thoughts of how these steel structures came down....because there are a great many reputable persons whom says things don't add we have all the answers...nope....but do we have an understanding of steel structures and disagree with bazant and bet....

i will put another test to you....please explain also why,,,,,the Madrid building stayed standing...and you can spew more rubbish about the thermals of the jet fuel...but you and i know it would take more than just the jet fuel it would require longer burning combustibles as the jet fuel would expel most of its thermal energy very quickly.

I want people to stop the spin now..and get to their points....time to stop the psycho babble it has been ten years now.....truthers have provided a more concise proof of what did not cause the buildings to collapse well over and above what the OSer's have on how they did collapse.

so i challenge you to step up to the plate......and you can ask me to prove the antena situ.....but why not look at the vid yourself...use GOM player to capture a burst from appox 1:12 and you will see....there i even give you the tools to do it yourself......because when i don't think something is correct I check myself.

edit on 023030p://f10Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 023030p://f12Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 023030p://f17Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:30 PM

Originally posted by samkent
Stack 20 tambourines on top of each other.
Drop a steel weight on to the top surface of the upper one.

Why do you OSer insist on making false analogies? This is why you are not taken seriously when you make statements like this, it really shows you fail to understand the forces you keep talking about.

The towers were not tambourines, with a weight falling on them. They were buildings designed to hold their weight more than once, the top 15 floors falling did not have more mass than the 95 floors they fell on.

Dropping 15 tambourines on 95 tambourines would be a more accurate comparison. Do you think they would fail the way you claim? For your claims to work you have to add this extra mass that wasn't there.

Your theory is that the weight would be arrested after a few gives way.
Ours is that if the upper surface gives way so will all the lower ones.

You don't have a theory you have an hypothesis. What kind of explanation is that? Can you explain it using the laws of motion?

What do you mean by upper surface, the block of falling floors? What happens when a low mass hits a high mass object? The force of impact is the same for both objects, equal opposite reaction...

Newton's third law of motion is naturally applied to collisions between two objects. In a collision between two objects, both objects experience forces that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Such forces often cause one object to speed up (gain momentum) and the other object to slow down (lose momentum). According to Newton's third law, the forces on the two objects are equal in magnitude. While the forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, the accelerations of the objects are not necessarily equal in magnitude. In accord with Newton's second law of motion, the acceleration of an object is dependent upon both force and mass. Thus, if the colliding objects have unequal mass, they will have unequal accelerations as a result of the contact force that results during the collision.

The forces on the two colliding floors are equal, you have mass pushing down, the 15 floors, but you also have mass pushing up, the 95 floors. No matter how fast the 15 floors were moving they simply can not stay in one piece while crushing the lower floors. BOTH impacting floors would be crushed. So you are losing mass, floors, from both the falling block and the static block of floors, 15 floors will be destroyed before they could ever destroy 95 floors. This is simple basic physics.

What causes the damage in a collision is the acceleration, or deceleration on impact. Velocity and mass determine how much each object accelerates, or decelerates. An object with more mass will accelerate, or decelerate, less than a smaller mass when they collide, the smaller mass receives the most damage, deformation.

Try this to prove my point...

I used a big red truck doing 10mph and a scooter doing 90mph to give you a good exaggerated example. This was the result...

The red truck came into the collision at 4.47 meters per second (10.00 miles per hour)
It left moving at 4.45 meters per second (9.96 miles per hour)
It hardly lost any speed at all!

The scooter came into the collision at -40.23 meters per second (-90.00 miles per hour)
It left moving at 49.16 meters per second (109.96 miles per hour)
It was jolted so much by the collision that it was sent back in the opposite direction!

Notice the truck hardly moved, but the scooter was jolted backwards at 109.96 MPH. In the real world, with momentum conservation considered, the scooter would be crushed, and the truck would receive very little damage.

Now two trucks at 90MPH...

The red truck came into the collision at 40.23 meters per second (90.00 miles per hour)
It left moving at -40.23 meters per second (-90.00 miles per hour)
It was jolted so much by the collision that it was sent back in the opposite direction!

The red truck came into the collision at -40.23 meters per second (-90.00 miles per hour)
It left moving at 40.23 meters per second (90.00 miles per hour)
It was jolted so much by the collision that it was sent back in the opposite direction!

Notice they create equal responses? Equal mass, equal damage.

Now put that in context of floors impacting floors, are you smart enough to realise what would happen? 15 floors can not crush 95 just like the scooter can not crush the truck.

This is basic physics mate, and is not debatable. Learn something.

edit on 9/1/2011 by ANOK because: typo

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:23 PM
reply to post by ANOK

very good analogy Anok....and well now lets ask the class a question....a bullet is fired from a gun is traveling at 300m/ impacts a force of 6000n upon a pumpkin when it hits the said pumpkin....

Now question for the OSer's in the much force does the pumpkin exert upon the bullet?

should be easy as it is a first year physics question...... the simulation in the video i presented ....the upper section would be losing mass as it is impacting the lower section....therefore the collapse would come to rest...therefore...not completing the collapse.

as the simulation shows...thought i would show again for those in a learning mode.....

so lets all see what can be concluded here.......

are the OSer's in here subscribing to the pancake......theory
or possibly the progressive collapse theory...

yet the pancake theory has been dismissed by NIST itself.....and the official story.....but the other progressive collapse has been thrown into doubt as the upper block did not stay wholey in tack as the Bazant report itself requires to happen in order for collapse phase to complete....

now Lucky Larry had a report commissoned and it had to show the integrity of the building and quickly dismissed pancaking and stated even the truss floor system would have negligable effect on the they concluded in a general statment that it must have been column failure...yet within their own report they say fires were not hot one i guess would have to conclude impact the priority cause....hence the insurance is a go ahead.

So bearing all this in mind OSer's....pick one....and stick to it.....and show your true beliefs....because I have always said....and always stay on the same theme....which is the lower structure had to be weakened in order for the collapse to continue to the ground....

how did this occur....i could make some things up...but what would be the point.....because without evidence it is just speculative.....but my experience and a great many others experience....and witin the OS itself in so many ways.....the buildings did not come down due to fires...or the impacts.....but by some mysterious sort of column failure which they have yet to explain.

So point here is i am amazed that the OSer's are sticking to theories that the NIST,FEMA,BAZANT and the Silverstien commissoned report do not even back it up.....

So keep on discussing your pancake theories and trying to pursue the progressive collapse...remembering they are two completely different concepts and i see a lot of intermingling of the two ideas.

progressive collapse is talking about the mass of the upper part having a crushing down effect.

pancaking is discussing the idea that there is a continuous failing of the truss seats due to overloading as the floors come cascading down.

so can we try and keep these in their respective categories as it might help to come to at least a touch of agreement on some in all matter what anyone thinks....Physics applies. DOH!

conservation of momentum does not all of a suddenly disappear.....

and i do have to admire the pure persistance to take one thing and run with it by the OSer's

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:14 PM
reply to post by plube


The Osers claims change to fit whatever point they are trying to debunk, or confuse, or deflect.

The one thing they can not address is the equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum, laws, they ovoid them like the plague.

I have shown evidence of those laws over and over again but they ignore it, or deflect it, pretend that what we see is not really what we see. Like the outer walls of WTC 7 being on top of the collapsed building, or the rubble of the towers being mostly ejected outside of the footprint. We'll never convince them though, they're not here for that, it's the 'fence sitting' readers that matter. They post to create doubt, and hope other people will not bother to look into it, because 'truthers' are stupid.

They are so transparent in their methods.

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:27 PM
I have decided to add something else....because why ask others to do things i would not do myself.....

i stated that one should look at the sauret vid...well i did it meself and did some lovely lines frame by frame..

I will show how the antena is actually dropping before the rooflinr of the upper block starts it's descent .....

ok lets try.....

when the collapse keep in mind this antena is situated on the hat truss which is robust steel and joins the central core with the perimeter columns.(yet again a flimsy tinfoil structure right)

next frame

red line drops blue line stays fixed

roofline now starts

Green line drop distance

just to note one might think it is insignifigant amount...but the green line represents aprox 10ft is the hieght ask yourselves why would it drop the hieght of a floor before the surrounding structure even begins to move....think again of the hat truss.....and please try to be somewhat logical in your not let your ignorance shine....

so i know OSer's will automatically say they don't see it...but hey...does it matter.....nope.

because yet again it is there..and i only show what is there....i don't try to add things or distort i want answers to my questions.....

the question is if this is pancaking then there would be no reason for the antena to start dropping first as the floors would be the cause of the collapse.

now if this was progressive collapse then the antena would start it's drop at the same time as the roofline....highly suspicious to this individual.

like i said Gen could have had the honors in this test as i informed him of the tools to do the job.

you see i try to look at the logical....i look at the evidence at hand,,,and analyse If the same criminals did not dispose ot the evidence so fast....a proper analysis could have been conducted to lay a great many suspicions to rest.

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:50 PM
reply to post by ANOK

I could not agree more....i too do it for the person on the fence who really wants to know what did not occur on the day.....Building seven is a fantastic site to behold as it shows an impecable CD.....It is a fine showing of workmanship.

what many people do not know about building seven is it was designed in such a way that every second floor could be entirely done away with to accomodate higher internal ceilings....and also another odd fact is the 23rd floor was known as the bunker as strangely enough those are the floors that held NY emergency response.

just another tidbit is on the day they set up a temporary emergency response centre for the terrorists drills that were to take place on the 12th

all just coincedence i guess though...

Emergency Command Center
The 23rd floor of Building 7 had received 15 million dollars' worth of renovations to create an emergency command center for then-Mayor Rudolf Giuliani. The features of the command center include:

Bullet- and bomb-resistant windows
An independent, secure air and water supply
The ability to withstand winds of 200 mph
These renovations were applied only to the 23rd floor. 2 3 The command-center bunker was the the subject of much ridicule when it was created


posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:01 AM
reply to post by plube

Did you take the tilting prior to full floor failure in consideration? And do you understand that tilting can perfectly account for what you observed here?

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:35 AM
reply to post by -PLB-

please explain what your talking about....instead of just say did i take tiliting into account.....are you a supporter of the pancake...or progressive collapse because it makes a difference ....and if your talking about the the is dropping right at the initiation of the is a frame by frame shot there that i presented...a total of 7 about somewhere around a 1/4s from start of drop to when the roofline starts to drop..which is interesting in itself as yet again it shows almost no resistance as it is being acceleratated only due to gravity.
Also you know, you and i have had many discussions on this PLB.... And you know that my area of response is never in nonsensical planes not there theories or mystical ufos....i stick to what i know...and that is buildings design and construction and particularily steel buildings with central cores...
now i know you do exactly what your doing now...rather than logically answer the question you will try to sway off topic rather than answer the one question i asked.
why would the antena....mounted on top of the hat truss....drop aprox 10ft....before the roofline of the tower began it's descent....i have my suspicions.....but this is the conundrum isn't is all speculation....and even though a person has expertise in certain many engineers architects pilots and the general public....we use logic and understanding to come to the conclusion that in a collapsing steel structure(which has never happened before in such a mannor) there are certain things that do not occur.....and this is one of them.
The central core does not will not and should not be the first thing to start to is the strongest part of the structure....but as you can see from the hat was obviously made from tin foil and just decided to drop below the roofline before the perimeter walls started their descent of well over 400m to the ground below.
now my order for this to occur....the core would have to be basically non existent and then also become separated from the hat truss which is connected to the perimeter the hat truss is the structure that ties the entire structure together at the top of the buildings.
so conclusion...when the antena drops...the entire structure would need to drop simultaneously as it is the interconnectedness of of things so for the antena to act independantly of the rest of the structure it would take some kind of miracle.
now this miracle would and could be accomplished by simply taking out the central you see...sticking to my one thing as always....if one takes out section of the central core at key places in ANY building of this gives the appearance of pancaking ...and in this case would give the appearence of a top down collapse due to the fact that planes were smashed into the side of the structures...
you see appearances can be decieving now can't they......but in any crime.....hard analysis does lead to some answers.
just a shame that the evidence was quickly dispersed....removed..and disposed of ....which leaves very little to work with...but you know what....the truthers are getting there.
I see more and more concise actions being taken upon the truthers and a more focused approach as to WHY? steel structures behaved as they did.
as as you know i have been working on a simulation....which is coming together...but i am a structural engineer not a computer programmer....but i will get there...and it does revolve around the central core being comprimised which as i say it is going to actually show the the way the buildings came down...
now this is from the ground up that is how i believe it was accomplished....but hey i could be wrong..but the evidence supports the model.....where most model ignore the evidence and they just try to mimmick the collapse...and they fail.

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:41 AM
reply to post by -PLB-

okay now to answer your question straight forward......LOOK....the rooline...the blue line...was not moving...if ithe structure was tilting at the point the blue line would be changing.

IT did Not......the line i made sure was exactly on the same x,y co-ordinates to make sure that relative positions were not violated.

now just as i stated in the post....and i knew this would occur....someone....glad you stepped forward would show how they did not observe what was in the i give you a gold star.

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 03:35 AM
reply to post by plube

Or put in another way, you do not understand how tilting can account for what you observed. So I decided to draw a diagram in paint. Maybe you understand it, although I don't have high hopes.

Note that equal in this case means more or less equal, meaning no noticeable difference.
edit on 2-9-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:26 AM
reply to post by -PLB-

lmao unbelievable...i don't understand tilting...omg.....the antena dropped separately from the main body of the structure....why don't you even bother to look.....and use the reference points to determine what is being shown it would not make a difference all things being relative...the antena being relative to the roofline also all you need to do is view the vid frame by frame and you would see what i am saying....but i am impressed that you took the time to do some of your own work...that was your own work right.

just to help you out....go to 1:12 in the vid. watch carefully.

ok another thing you might notice in this vid...which occurs in quite few vids throughout 9/11 at 1:03 the camera shakes in this particular videos...and it is a compilation so it occurs over and over....but the shake occurs then the are large plumes of smoke expelled ...then the collapse initiates....but of course this is just a normal circumstanc of the fires cause a very large blast which was strong enough to shake the stationary camera because of the high degre of explosive materials in the office building....but to me is this a logical consequence......nope it is not....but you keep believing and seeing what you only want to see to fit your perception and what you want others to see...where i will continue to stick with reality and show what DID occur and then draw conclusions from the evidence at hand.

also to show you i do understand

i add two lines one from the first frame and one from the last frame.

now as you see you can see the right side of the building also....which if there is tiliting at this time will show as a slope to the green line. tilt at this time...AT ALL

and i did understand what you were trying to get at as if it did tilt back the illusion would be a dropping effect...but guess what...not the case....that is why i had put the blue line where i did because then it goes past the roofline there eliminating the effect that you so proudly tried to show.......nice try though.
edit on 063030p://f40Friday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 063030p://f49Friday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 063030p://f50Friday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 073030p://f04Friday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 073030p://f18Friday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:52 AM
reply to post by plube

It was to be expected that you don't understand the diagram. When you fail to understand that as result of tilting the mast can appear to move down while the face seems to stay in position, then how are you going to understand anything concerning this subject? It seems to me this really should not be hard to grasp, especially after looking at my diagram.

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:24 AM
I see that you edited your post. Your rebuttal to my explanation is basically

.not the case....that is why i had put the blue line where i did because then it goes past the roofline there eliminating the effect that you so proudly tried to show.......nice try though.

The roof line would appear to be stationary, so it would perfectly line up with your blue line. Take another look at my diagram. The line labeled "equal" corresponds with your blue line. But well done in at least trying to grasp it. You are not there yet though.
edit on 2-9-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:35 AM
reply to post by -PLB-

just as you do not see hear what has been can see the right side ot the building....if there was ANY TILTING it would show....your case stands if you could only see the front of the building....but you can see the side too....

so you cannot answer it can you.

I understood precisely what you were trying to say....but you know what.....your wrong in this case...simple as.

new topics

top topics

<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in