It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

Controlled Demolition Was Not Needed To Bring Down The Towers

page: 32
23
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:05 PM

damn. i spent awhile typing up my reply, and i accidentally closed my ats window. OK. lets give this another go.

friction couldn't have supplied anywhere near enough energy to melt the steel. lets do some maths. (and i know you're just tossing this out as a possible theory, but believe me, i have looked, and i cannot find an explanation beyond thermate to account for the molten steel.)

Thus the total energy needed to melt one kilogram (or per kilogram) is 272,000 + 478,400 or 750,400 joules. Let's be generous and assume that all the energy of motion of the falling steel is converted to heat in the steel. Then the gravitational energy available as shown above is at most 4028 joules. This is a lot less than the 750,400 joules needed to melt the steel. In fact the gravitational energy is too small by a factor of 750,400 divided by 4028, or 186. The factor is probably much larger because, for example, all the molten steel probably did not fall from the top floor and in the case of WTC 7, the building height is about half that of the towers. A more realistic number would be over a thousand.

he makes a lot of liberal assumptions, like 800 degree C starting point for the steel (which is much higher than there is evidence of, but its the NIST numbers)

www.journalof911studies.com...

there is no way it could have come from friction. i once believed it was terrorists, but the molten metal made me change my mind. there is no getting over them.
edit on 19-6-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:19 PM

I'm trying to figure out if the OP is a "committee" of summer school students who started this lame thread for fun or whether he's a trainee in "shill school" at Langley

People who are seriously interested in this topic should use the ATS search function. Believe it or not, there are debunkers out there who don't come from the "jailhouse lawyer" school of debate.

Much of what the OP posts is simply propagandistic misinformation, substitution of the part for the whole and milk wagon donkey blinkered vision.

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:37 PM
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

What is the motivation? This is what puzzles me. Why?

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:38 PM

With air resistence, free fall is just over 10 seconds or therabouts depending on the sake and size of the object.

If your time of 14-15 seconds is true (I get about 13-14) then what you are asking everyone to believe is that, in the case of the north tower for example, 94 stories went down, without any appreciable loss of momentum, all the way to the ground, crushed, so to speak, in about 4 seconds (give or take a second), since it is only in the difference of time between absolute free fall (in nothing but air) and the actual destruction time that all breakage can have occured. Thus your argument backfires when people consider the implications of that, of 94 stories being progressively crushed, in about 4 seconds. Absent the use of explosive removing the structure beneath the collapsing debris wave, it violates the laws of motion, one of which is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

edit on 19-6-2011 by NewAgeMan because: typo

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:15 PM

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

With air resistence, free fall is just over 10 seconds or therabouts depending on the sake and size of the object.

If your time of 14-15 seconds is true (I get about 13-14) then what you are asking everyone to believe is that, in the case of the north tower for example, 94 stories went down, without any appreciable loss of momentum, all the way to the ground, crushed, so to speak, in about 4 seconds (give or take a second), since it is only in the difference of time between absolute free fall (in nothing but air) and the actual destruction time that all breakage can have occured. Thus your argument backfires when people consider the implications of that, of 94 stories being progressively crushed, in about 4 seconds. Absent the use of explosive removing the structure beneath the collapsing debris wave, it violates the laws of motion, one of which is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

edit on 19-6-2011 by NewAgeMan because: typo

In my original diagram I never illustrated the progressive collapse of floors anyway, that term was just the best way I could describe the progressively accumulated mass crashing down on the weakened floors caused by the inward bowing of the exterior columns.

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:17 PM
Am I missing something here?
Did scientists FINALLY discover the law of physics/chemistry which states that gravity and some fire turns steel into dust?

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:52 PM

Originally posted by MindfulReason
Am I missing something here?
Did scientists FINALLY discover the law of physics/chemistry which states that gravity and some fire turns steel into dust?

Most of the steel was not tuned into the dust. The dust came from the concrete and office supplies being "pulverized" , here is a report if you care to read it.

www.911myths.com...

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:27 PM
There is no conspiracy folks please wake up.

edit on 19-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:34 PM

911research.wtc7.net...

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. 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 falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds*, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.

Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed?

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:38 PM

Originally posted by inforeal

911research.wtc7.net...

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. 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 falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds*, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.

Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed?

This paper explains it quite easily

www.911myths.com...

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:42 PM

I think that guy is an idiot!

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:48 PM

yes...i haven't quite figured that out 100% either. my guess? money. the whole u.s. government isn't in on it, only a select few that stood to gain. yet, there was alot of inside trading the day of 9/11. a few planned it, most didn't know what they were doing, just following orders.

establishing a presence in the middle east for oil, drugs, and power. and 9/11 allowed for the passage of things like the patriot act, stripping americans of more rights.

we will probably never know all the reasons, but the above is my best guess. i think the why is secondary to the event itself. if we did blow up those towers, which i believe we did, that is the main issue. there needs to be an independent investigation, and after they confirm what happened, the things nist ignored, there need to be trials.

there was a document written called "rebuilding america's defences" by "project for a new american century" it lays out what they want to accomplish over the next 4 decades. at the end of the document, they said "a new pearl harbor would advance our plans faster". this was written a little less than a year before 9/11
edit on 19-6-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 08:04 PM
also check this out:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I wonder why this debate is still going on. I researched this years ago and it is clear that those buildings were blown up.

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 08:11 PM

Originally posted by inforeal
also check this out:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I wonder why this debate is still going on. I researched this years ago and it is clear that those buildings were blown up.

This implies the whole building was pulverized which it was not. You're right I don't know why this debate is still going on , the controlled demolition theory was proved to be a sham YEARS ago. There were no flash points, and the people near the buildings would have almost gone deaf from the blast if it was a real controlled demo, Steven Jones was proved to be a moron,the sqib theory was debunked, and so and and so forth.

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 09:11 PM

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by inforeal

911research.wtc7.net...

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. 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 falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds*, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.

Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed?

This paper explains it quite easily

www.911myths.com...

Make your mind up, not long ago you were decrying pulverisation en masse, even mentioning large remnant portions of concrete ahem, like 5cm in size. It is plausible to assume that there would all manner of sizes of concrete in remnants, and obviously not all concrete was turned to dust, since there was at least one escapee who survived under a portion of intact concrete stairwell. You and the link are still assuming what you stated in your opening post, in that all the towers portions and their mass above the hit line with assisted force impacted the lower portions, that is clearly not the case, most of the south tower's upper portion fell away in a lateral fashion and disintegrated. So much then for pulverisation to the lower portion from above. The north tower was no different except that a good part of its upper, (lighter on the face of it) portion stayed more intact to ground level. The huge dust is a mixture of substances, all of it toxic BTW, and in the main was the concrete, but to take that into account it points to the concrete having dryed out completely and which concrete is not known to do as it absorbs any moisture and is its strength. The debate isn't over as it is not to hard to consider that there is much thought going on into the new WTC buildings not necessarily terrorist related, and starting at the 'basic' level of bolt environment protection for instance....

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 09:25 PM

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by inforeal

911research.wtc7.net...

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. 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 falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds*, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.

Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed?

This paper explains it quite easily

www.911myths.com...

You and the link are still assuming what you stated in your opening post, in that all the towers portions and their mass above the hit line with assisted force impacted the lower portions, that is clearly not the case, most of the south tower's upper portion fell away in a lateral fashion and disintegrated.

If anything, the tipping of the top would cause more weight to come down because all the energy is being centralized to one point. By the time the top was falling over the building had already started to collapse.

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 10:40 PM

I cannot believe you would question the Gov! What has happened to my country? BTW Rummy said it best. Enjoy and Peace to you.

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:01 PM

If you find that out PLEASE let everyone know. I wondered why people cannot see the dust instead of thousands of pounds of steel crushing down. What caused the building to turn to dust and what caused the huge explosions in the basement that turned steel into lava. What do they have that we do not know about? What type of weopon can turn a Tower into dust? Not sure if we will ever know since most are concerned with terrorist and flying jets into buildings. The entire event was a ritual to bring in the NWO but I would like to know what type of weapon was used. Remember when Papa Bush called for the NWO on Sept 11, 1990? His Son GW brought in the beginning of a long battle. I am sure people will say this was just some terrorist from caves and their abilities to overcome the most powerful Government on this planet. They may try to explain away Papa Bush and all the references of 911 in movies, music, TV and other well hidden places. This is nothing more than a movie yet so many believed every aspect of the story was real. The destruction was real just like the destruction of the Gulf Oil spill which was shown a year before it happened in the movie Knowing. The Elite do not lie to us. they do not hand feed us either. They have a role to play and although they seem mean and dangerous as hell they have a purpose. Something tells me the ending will be good. Order out of Chaos is their motto.

edit on 19-6-2011 by Buford2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 11:45 PM

Ill grant you its entirely likely only key players in key positions would be in on it,in fact I would go so far as to say it wouldntbwork with too many in the know at any level but most particularly at ground level....Someone had to squash the order to scramble the jets...put a hush on the course deviations of the airliners,etc.

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:44 AM

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever

Originally posted by inforeal
also check this out:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I wonder why this debate is still going on. I researched this years ago and it is clear that those buildings were blown up.

This implies the whole building was pulverized which it was not. You're right I don't know why this debate is still going on , the controlled demolition theory was proved to be a sham YEARS ago. There were no flash points, and the people near the buildings would have almost gone deaf from the blast if it was a real controlled demo, Steven Jones was proved to be a moron,the sqib theory was debunked, and so and and so forth.

Thats false disinformation. You don't go deaf if you standing near to a controlled demolition. The control demolition has not been proven to be a sham. You haven't proved anything. Your theory has more holes than a swiss cheese slice.

And that last PDF you upload talks about a self sustained progressive collapse kinect energy and the amount needed to pulverize concrete. Then puts the towers collapse in equation without mentioning that what they are stating was done in record time not physical. They go on about amount of energy that was produced on the day to implode the buildings. It dont equate for time it took and laws of physics.

And it ends stating that explosives were considered and that it would have needed 600 tonnes of high explosives. Just generalizing it as "high explosives" Not detailing the type of explosive. Not accounting for even higher explosives. And on that alone discredits that it could have been done.

I wouldnt be surprised if that report was produced to mislead people like you

I'm not surprised you would use it to validate your point.

new topics

top topics

23