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: 8
23
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:31 AM

## Physics 101 - Statics

Basic elementary physics explains why this isn't feasible.

For a couple of reasons.

If it collapsed due to fatigue as we are being told. It wouldn't occur evenly.
In order for something to fall straight down as it did, the supporting structure would need to be removed evenly...as in controlled demolition.
Otherwise if collapsing due to fatique, the weaker side, where the plane struck would collapse first.

Secondly, due to the conservation of energy.
The top 15 floors did not weigh more than the bottom 85 floors + 6 floors of foundation.

In Physics 101 we are taught this via what are called Free Body Diagrams which described the forces on a body under gravity.

They look like this:

Where N is the Normal the forces pushing upwards due to the strength of the object.
Where F is the Force pushing downward due to gravity and it's weight or mass

F= ma

In this example we would use Block A as representing the top floors that collapsed coming down on Block B.

Which represents the opposing 85 Floors + 6 Floors of Foundation pushing upwards.

You'd calculate the forces of each. And in summary simply due to the major differences in Mass.

Even though block A is moving it still would not exceed the forces pushing upwards represented by B.

Which is where the Architects and Engineers calculations can provide details and numbers of ...

You can test this theory by creating a tower of 11 cinder blocks for example.

1 cinder block representing 10 stories of the WTC.

1 cinder block on top is lifted up a few inches representing the distance the top floors traveled initially due to the collapse of the story.

Now Drop this top cinder block on the bottom 10 cinder blocks.

The forces pushing downward would be opposed by the forces pushing upwards which were far greater and would not collapse the bottom 10 cinder blocks...but at most, might damage one slightly.

Because the forces would be absorbed by the entire structure and not only the single cinder block being impacted.

Plain and Simple.

But this is what they were counting on.
How many Americans even understand Physics for example ?

I mean, looking at all of my suburban neighbors, Avg working Americans....most due not have a clue.
When it comes to math and science...

That was the whole basis of the Fraud of 911. Televised Shock and Awe to a gullible uneducated population.

War is a Racket.

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:51 AM

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
you are deluded. ever heard of physics. Look it up.

No offense but if you continue to think the weren't demolished. It just proves they could rely on how gullible people like you are.
As much as I diasagree with this guys views, gullible isn't something to call someone when they did their own experiment.

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Explain Bldg 7. That is the start, middle and end of the debate. If that ONE building can be explained by natural forces and occurrence through the events of that morning, then all the theories fall apart. If however, it cannot be explained as a cause/effect of two planes hitting Bldg 1 and 2, then it's all a load of crap. It's really that simple and that cut and dry.

So..... Explain Bldg 7.

This is it. Theres really nothing I can add.

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:12 AM

Building Seven was brought down by Alien forces. Makes as much sense as the BS MSM is telling us.

Yep for the war on Alien terror. That has a nice NWO ring to it.....

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Observer99
OP is either a troll, a plant or a person of low intelligence. Don't bother.

HEY TROLL/PLANT, YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO THIS:

Show me one other instance in human history where a steel frame building collapsed like these 3 buildings, all at once, due to fire. Just 1 in all of human history, all you need to show me. Good luck with that.

I'LL BE WAITING.
edit on 18-6-2011 by Observer99 because: (no reason given)

You never responded to my question either. Name one building in human history that was hit at high speed (500mph) by a fully loaded jet, good luck with that truther lol

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:23 AM

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
This is just my opinion so don't be bashing, but I made up a few pictures depicting why I think the WTC buildings collapsed (basically leaning to towards the "official" story as it's put lol).

The collapse starts at 3 seconds into the video, and the building stops becoming visible at around 12 or 13 seconds into the video (9 seconds) , however just like stated above, there are MANY floors below which are unaccounted for in the fall, which brings my collapse time to around 14 seconds (14-18 seconds including all the debris that fell).

In conclusion, I 100% believe that controlled demolition was not needed to bring down the towers.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)

There is a little thing in physics called "resistance" , and believe me... there is no resistance at all in the way these buildings are collapsing. They simply blow out all the structural resistance of the buidings.
edit on 18-6-2011 by greenCo because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Illustronic
If a skyscraper is a contained system, wouldn't vibrations at the structure's top be transferred throughout the entire system as the collapse was taking place and continued to on down, weakening the entire system until the ultimate impacting structure reached? Just because the lower structure 'looks' to be in tact it is far from being undamaged by the continued collapse. Any structural engineer can explain that to you. The skyscrapers were not two separate systems above and below the impact zones, they were a complete system absorbing the shock throughout, to say anything different is ludicrous.

Skyscraper columns are designed to support a given amount of STATIC vertical mass, when that system is breached by either moving or non-vertical mass the forces acting on the columns become precarious calculations to attempt to make. The damage began when 100+ton aircrafts applied horizontal forces to the building systems.

After 10 years people still don't understand what thermite is and what it was used for. A gravity burn incendiary cannot take out vertical columns, that thermite theory is ridiculous, LOL! The sheer volume of thermite required to burn through a given amount of steel far exceed the amount of steel it is to burn through. Watch 1800's demonstrations of how they burnt through railroad rails and see how much thermite it took and please note the gravity burn of the horizontal rails. The only other real use for thermite incendiaries was to disarm ordinances in the military, also note the mass required, let alone the apparatuses used.

As far as seeing red melts in the skyscrapers go, has anyone considered the thousands of miles of copper wiring and or thin plumbing pipes? Wasn't this noticed inside the building walls where such infrastructure would be? Has nobody ever thrown some copper wiring into a camp fire before? Besides metal that turns orange and red glows long before it melts, I know this by bending back an anti sway bar on a sports car I damaged, got it bright red to hammer straight again with a sledgehammer. It was a full inch diameter bar, bright red far from melting point, metal shop 101.

Of course this makes complete sense and almost every expert agrees, but it doesn't matter how much sense you make a conspiracy theorists will always make false claims about how it defies physics (that's laughable). The Titanic was an unsinkable ship but a freaking ice berg sunk it, I guess conspiracy theorists think that "defies physics" lol Kids.

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:26 AM

Originally posted by greenCo

Originally posted by SkepticAndBeliever
This is just my opinion so don't be bashing, but I made up a few pictures depicting why I think the WTC buildings collapsed (basically leaning to towards the "official" story as it's put lol).

The collapse starts at 3 seconds into the video, and the building stops becoming visible at around 12 or 13 seconds into the video (9 seconds) , however just like stated above, there are MANY floors below which are unaccounted for in the fall, which brings my collapse time to around 14 seconds (14-18 seconds including all the debris that fell).

In conclusion, I 100% believe that controlled demolition was not needed to bring down the towers.
edit on 18-6-2011 by SkepticAndBeliever because: (no reason given)

There is a little thing in physics called "resistance" , and believe me... there is no resistance at all in the way this buildings are collapsing. They simply blow out all the structural resistance of the buidings.

Of course there is resistance, the debri of the columns is coming down way faster than the building is in all the videos, plus teh building came down in at least 14 seconds, no resistance woudl have made the building fall at 8 seconds. Nice try though

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:29 AM

Originally posted by nh_ee

## Physics 101 - Statics

Basic elementary physics explains why this isn't feasible.

Thank you for your wonderful wisdom, I guess I'll ignore every expert that disagrees with you and take your word for it.....ya but I'M gullible? Funny.

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Tephra
Just explain one thing OP, you're theory rests on the weight of the upper floors collapsing the floors below. How do suspect the floors below offer no resistance to the weight above. If you're theory were correct, the building would have taken longer to collapse.

Also, you make the common mistake of failing to explain Building 7, as most people do out of sheer convenience.

Why do liars keep saying there was no resistance? If there was no resistance the building would have fallen at free fall speed (8 seconds) it really fell at 14- 18 seconds if you look at the video I posted in my original post.

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:33 AM
i honestly cannot believe that some idiots actually think this was NOT an inside job. There is far more evidence to prove it was a controlled demolition than against it. It just goes to show that you and others will believe any bull#### you are fed, so just sit back, let our western masters rape and destroy other nations for profit and consume their lies, like you consume probably every other pile of crap our politicians tell us and do absolutely nothing but be a closed minded fool.

its time we all got together and fought back against these profit hungry capitalists and took our countries back, we live in poverty while they live like gods

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:35 AM
None of the pancaking explanations can account for the buildings turning into dust.

Even the classic controlled demolition method doesn't explain how buildings like that, with that much core steel got dustified in a matter of seconds.

Test of super-secret hi-tech weapon that can dustify huge towers like that? Yes. Do some more research and you'll find that the state-of-the-art analysis of these dust rendering collapses is that an atom smasher type weapon first made the interior of the structures so hot that it made jumpers and then the dustification occurred

Hey, don't take my word for it. Look it up.

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:36 AM

A missile hit the pentagon?

Plane shot down over PA?

I dont remember those "slip ups" Being part of any official story... Guess we are just crazy conspiracy buffs then! lol...

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:37 AM
Im exhausted reading through all the back and forth of the tower theories. I'm not one to jump on any theory just because it simply fits my beliefs or fall victim to a sketchy story provided by any source of media, but I try not to rule out anything without doing proper research. To me, that day in general was just too clouded with doubt. How everything unfolded what seems perfectly. I can't get over how 19 terrorists managed to pull off such a tragedy in what is considered the greatest country in the world without any detection and if there was, I'm still shocked it was allowed to happen.

On one hand, the government had more to benefit from this happening then actual drawback and obviously had some involvement and/or knowledge beforehand or on the other hand you can accept the fact that 19 people hijacked multiple planes on the same morning without much difficulty and changed the world we live in for the worst. I mean, honestly, if you had told me years beforehand what was going to happen, I would call you crazy.

So, regardless of whether not the towers fell from the planes or were demolished. I still find the whole events that surround that day in all their obscurity, a bit difficult to believe and even comprehend. A day I`ll never forget.

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Buford2

A sandwich effect would not turn metal into dust.

What metal dust? Is there a sample of that around? Was it iron dust or another metal?

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:39 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:39 AM

Originally posted by thedarktower
i honestly cannot believe that some idiots actually think this was NOT an inside job. There is far more evidence to prove it was a controlled demolition than against it. It just goes to show that you and others will believe any bull#### you are fed, so just sit back, let our western masters rape and destroy other nations for profit and consume their lies, like you consume probably every other pile of crap our politicians tell us and do absolutely nothing but be a closed minded fool.

its time we all got together and fought back against these profit hungry capitalists and took our countries back, we live in poverty while they live like gods

The only bull# I'm being fed is in this thread. Everyone is acting like I think it was the top floors alone that cause the collapse, it was a PROGRESSIVE collapse (looks it up if people want to talk physics), which means the the weight accumulated ont eh way down caused it to fall, not just the initial weight of the top. PROGRESSIVE collapse. I'll stay it again just in case some people missed it. PROGRESSIVE collapse.

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:40 AM
I love how "all this weight crashing down" is supposed to explain everything.

Is that the Religion of Physics?

The word energy is a number of times in the thread but joules the measure of energy is not.

By empirical testing I was able to determine that it takes 0.118 joules to crush a single paper loop. The empty space fall distance under my dropped mass provided enough energy to flatten 8 single loops. What happened in the video was 5 loops were flattened and 4 were partially crushed. Mathematics ain't physics it just gives good approximations.

Energy would be required to collapse each level of the core and due to Newton's 3rd Law the bottom of the falling upper portion would be crushed simultaneously using up more energy. The falling mass would either arrest or it would get off center and fall down the side. For the top 15 stories of the north tower to crush 94 stories below in less than 18 seconds is a total absurdity.

But then official sources don't tell us the amount of steel and concrete on each level of the buildings and our so called physicists are not demanding the information. Not even Steven Jones.

So where is the engineering school that has built a physical model that can completely collapse?

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

psik

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:41 AM
post removed because of personal attacks

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:42 AM

Well, you post an opinion, ya get arguments, i.e. "bashing".

You are no expert and have no expert research upon which you are relying. Also, about 200 experts disagree completely with your opinion.

So based on the experts you are dead wrong.

top topics

23