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.

 

99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

page: 40
274
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


3. There was no need for the weakening of the lower structure or need for jolts as termed. It gained mass as it fell therefore would gain momentum as they fell also.

Of course it is countered by the resistance of the floors below and if the structure was not a tube in tube frame design it may have simply toppled over causing more damage to the surrounding buildings with a greater loss of life.


It gained mass? Here we go with magic again *rolls eyes*

Tube in a tube frame? dude give up all ready. that's makes no sense. The core of the building, what about that? Tube whatever.

Yes, if it wasn't demolished it should have toppled but it didn't. So keep deluding science and physics.

The resistance you talk about of one floor at a time and the mass became greater is hilarious that you think that.

that just proves you has no idea about Physics 101.

The solid base structure was intact. And structural failure does not implode a building.

For the speed of the fall to be 10 secs, disproves that the mass gained weight. Because each floor technically has to disappear for it to fall in 10 secs. If you say that each floor collapse gained weight. means that each floor didn't disappear and the progressive collection of weight would take way more than 10 secs. This is what you reckon. Even what you are saying is impossible because there wasn't enough weight in the buildings top sections above the impact zones to total implode a building. The debris would have crumbled over the sides, leaving the rest standing. Now if you can't see that. You need to go back to school. Because those laws of physics is basic knowledge.

Advice when you come up with your crazy theories, think about time. Think about quick the buildings feel vs what your saying supposedly happened. You will soon realize that it's really quick free fall and that what you state would take way longer. That might help.

Might help because tupac keeps ripping you to shreads everytime you try with your uneducated theories.





edit on 3-7-2011 by MasterAndrew because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by MasterAndrew
 


that just proves you has no idea about Physics 101.
That proves you have no idea about Grammar 101!
I had to call you out on that.

But I completely agree, you can't bend the laws of Physics to match your beliefs. If that was the case they wouldn't be the laws of physics, they'd be...the laws of bending how things should work to match your beliefs.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
You know what, I cant get my post to work with me, forget it >.<

edit on 3-7-2011 by chancemusky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I must admit I didn't read everything, but this is just wrong:



Facts: Some other force must have weakened the stronger lower structure first allowing the roof to continually accelerate down. A downward accelerating object crushing a lower structure that once supported it statically but experiencing no jolts acting by gravity alone is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated. This is incorrect on many accounts


It simply is possible. You not being able to understand or imagine that it is does not make is so. I will try to help you imagining it. Imagine that the top section is tilted some degrees. Imagine that the section where the collapse is happening is chaotic. Now imagine that the tilted chaotically shaped falling mass starts hitting an intact floor. One area of that floor will be hit first and suffer local failure. Then the next area is hit and gradually failure it spread throughout the floor. Additionally, the towers act like a spring, dampening the collisions somewhat. The result is that for a viewer the collapse seems to go very smoothly, without hiccups.
edit on 3-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
It gained mass? Here we go with magic again *rolls eyes*

For the speed of the fall to be 10 secs, disproves that the mass gained weight. Because each floor technically has to disappear for it to fall in 10 secs. If you say that each floor collapse gained weight. means that each floor didn't disappear and the progressive collection of weight would take way more than 10 secs. This is what you reckon. Even what you are saying is impossible because there wasn't enough weight in the buildings top sections above the impact zones to total implode a building. The debris would have crumbled over the sides, leaving the rest standing. Now if you can't see that. You need to go back to school. Because those laws of physics is basic knowledge.


So you think that the mass disappeared? How is that not magic? Can you explain how this happened?
edit on 3-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I think we all know that 911 was a conspiracy. Where have YOU been?



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





One area of that floor will be hit first and suffer local failure. Then the next area is hit and gradually failure it spread throughout the floor. Additionally, the towers act like a spring, dampening the collisions somewhat. The result is that for a viewer the collapse seems to go very smoothly, without hiccups.


Interesting piece of creative writing, care to support any of that with empirical evidence?

You see the problem is we know of instances where what you are describing happens in verinages, and guess what...

You see a jolt in those.

Besides which, think for a second: When that top floor strikes the bottom floor breaking the bottom floor apart, what exactly, in your imagination is happening to the top floor?



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

It simply is possible. You not being able to understand or imagine that it is does not make is so.
Yeah it not being possible makes it so. You're the one that doesn't seem to understand, a falling body cannot come into contact with a static object without decelerating. Newtons first law says that an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force. Once the top section hit the bottom section, it was acted on by an outside force, meaning that it's motion will be altered. The velocity of the top section should have slowed when it made contact but it didn't.


I will try to help you imagining it. Imagine that the top section is tilted some degrees. Imagine that the section where the collapse is happening is chaotic. Now imagine that the tilted chaotically shaped falling mass starts hitting an intact floor. One area of that floor will be hit first and suffer local failure. Then the next area is hit and gradually failure it spread throughout the floor. Additionally, the towers act like a spring, dampening the collisions somewhat. The result is that for a viewer the collapse seems to go very smoothly, without hiccups.
Having an imagination is nice, but having a basic knowledge of physics is even better. What you just described cannot occur without the top area of the building first decelerating. It doesn't matter how smooth the collapse goes or how chaotic the floors are, the top portion of the building would decelerate when it makes contact with the bottom section.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by -PLB-
 





One area of that floor will be hit first and suffer local failure. Then the next area is hit and gradually failure it spread throughout the floor. Additionally, the towers act like a spring, dampening the collisions somewhat. The result is that for a viewer the collapse seems to go very smoothly, without hiccups.


Interesting piece of creative writing, care to support any of that with empirical evidence?

You see the problem is we know of instances where what you are describing happens in verinages, and guess what...

You see a jolt in those.

Besides which, think for a second: When that top floor strikes the bottom floor breaking the bottom floor apart, what exactly, in your imagination is happening to the top floor?


That is not a problem, the designs are completely different. What you see in those Verinage collapses is supports being destroyed. In the WTC only the floor had to fail. There is plenty of evidence that many supports did not fail, but simple collapsed because they were no longer supported themselves. My main point is though that us not capable of imagining how the collapse would work exactly is in no way evidence for explosives or thermite. It is just evidence that we are either not trained enough to do so or that it is just very complex.

What is the problem you see with a floor in the top section failing?



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by esdad71
 

This is supposed to set up the video. However, the in the videos it shows a demolition by gravity using hydraulics and the collapse of the WTC. They then explain that they should look the same. They do. They are identical except in the video of the other building he adds the resistance to the model and in the case of the WTC he does not. Why is that? Because then they would like the same until they hit something. This was common sense to show the difference and as always, part of something is shown and it is taken as fact by anyone who believes it.
He didn't "add" resistance, the resistance that he mentioned referred to the fact that the building did not fall at exactly 9.8m/s^2 once the columns were blown. The purpose of that video is to show that if the top section of the WTCs did indeed become independent of the building and hit the remaining lower portion of the building, it would decelerate, as seen in the gravity driven demolition. However the fact that when the top section should experience a jolt but doesn't is a clear indication that other forces are at work causing the lower section of the tower to collapse before the top section makes contact with it, meaning controlled demolition.


1. You are not taking into account the change in mass with each floor that is hit.
The mass is irrelavant, the concept would be the same for a cardboard box falling onto other cardboard boxes, or neutron star matter falling onto other neutron star matter (an extremely dense material in case you're asking why did I bring that up). Regardless of the mass of each floor, there would be a momentary deceleration when the top section makes contact with the bottom section.


2. You and the creator of the video are relying on the term ‘jolt’ as if it applies to how physics were impossible on that day.
"Jolt" is slang for a physics term, a momentary deceleration. Physics apply to everything during every second of every day, and the top section of the towers not experiencing a jolt defies the laws of physics, according to the official story at least. We're not implying that physics were impossible on that day, we're implying that physics prove the official story to be false.


3. There was no need for the weakening of the lower structure or need for jolts as termed. It gained mass as it fell therefore would gain momentum as they fell also.
Yes there definitely is the need for a jolt, if the top section of the building became independent of the rest of the tower and the only force acting on it is gravity, then the moment it comes into contact with the bottom section of the building it will slow down before crushing it. The objects mass and momentum are irrelevant when discussing acceleration by gravity alone, the concept of deceleration when a falling body comes into contact with another object is set in stone. That is a fact, you can't argue against physics, unless of course you want to get into it with this fella:

The WTCs falling but experiencing no jolt when the top sections should come into contact with the bottom section means that the bottom section already began falling before the top section came into contact with it. No deceleration from coming into contact with the building means that the top section never hit the lower part when it should have to crush it. The only explanation which would be consistent with the laws of physics is a controlled demolition.



Just so I know, you are stating that the only way those 'spheres' could occur is if thermite was used?
No, I'm saying that the microspheres presence combined with nano-thermite chips and three towers falling just like controlled demolitions means that thermite was used.
edit on 3-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post


You do not understand. The videos with the gravitational collapse are incomplete. You are comparing two charts where one shows the entire collapse and the other does not. This skews the results that are shown. Of course they look different as one shows the continued collapse and one stops when the WTC hits the lower floors. This makes them worthless.

Mass is not irrelevant and you are not calculating the velocity correctly. Really? You are quoting Sir Issac but only apply one law where there are multiple calculations that would need to be completed to show the collapse that day. Physics do not prove the official story false. I mean, they fell right? So what the hell are you implying. That on one day in September the laws of physics were suspended because I sure as hell saw those towers fall. This circular argument you present makes no sense either.

A jolt is not needed either. Sorry, in school this was referred to as surge so I had to check some references on it. I think the term in physics you may be looking for is shock.

The only force acting on the upper floors is not gravity alone. The Mass and stored energy released that then grew as it collapsed is what happened and this can be shown by Sir Issac. The building is created to use the entire structure to distribute the weight and support evenly.

Again,you are trying to use the videos that were posted to 'show' the jolt. Since the videos and charts are incomplete this will never be accurate.

As far as some of you thinking the design did not come into play in the collapse do not understand how unique this structure was and was designed for maximum office space so the tube in tube design allows for less columns from the interior to the exterior of the structure. It gives an open air feeling. Most buildings are not designed like this for better structural stability.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



That is not a problem, the designs are completely different. What you see in those Verinage collapses is supports being destroyed. In the WTC only the floor had to fail. There is plenty of evidence that many supports did not fail, but simple collapsed because they were no longer supported themselves. My main point is though that us not capable of imagining how the collapse would work exactly is in no way evidence for explosives or thermite. It is just evidence that we are either not trained enough to do so or that it is just very complex.
For the top section to fall and not decelerate at the point when it should make contact with the bottom section, that can only mean one thing: the bottom section was not there for the top section to hit. That means that before the top section even had the opportunity to crush the bottom section like the official story claims, the bottom section was already falling. Since there structure of the bottom section of the building was fully intact yet it was falling before the top section even touched it, that means the structure was taken out by controlled demolition.


What is the problem you see with a floor in the top section failing?
Jet fuel can't melt steel, and the WTCs were designed to take multiple impacts from Boeing 707s, yet one commercial airplane hitting both towers makes them collapse completely at nearly free-fall speed.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



Jet fuel can't melt steel, and the WTCs were designed to take multiple impacts from Boeing 707s, yet one commercial airplane hitting both towers makes them collapse completely at nearly free-fall speed.


You are aware that this is someone's OPINION !

Not hard and provable fact......

As we know now this opinion is not factual



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

You are aware that this is someone's OPINION !

Not hard and provable fact......

As we know now this opinion is not factual
No I'm aware that these are facts.

Fact: Jet fuel can't melt steel.


Fact: the WTCs were designed to take multiple impacts from Boeing 707s

the building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it...I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet-liners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid and the jet plane is just the pencil puncturing that screen netting
--WTC construction manager


There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But the building structure would still be there.
--WTC head structural engineer

Fact: one commercial airplane hitting both towers made them collapse completely at nearly free-fall speed.
edit on 3-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
For the top section to fall and not decelerate at the point when it should make contact with the bottom section, that can only mean one thing: the bottom section was not there for the top section to hit. That means that before the top section even had the opportunity to crush the bottom section like the official story claims, the bottom section was already falling. Since there structure of the bottom section of the building was fully intact yet it was falling before the top section even touched it, that means the structure was taken out by controlled demolition.


The point I was making is that there was no single moment of collision, but there was constantly a collision going on somewhere. But even when the there was a single moment of collision, it is still questionable if there would be a noticeable slowdown. The resistance offered by the floors is not that great.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

The point I was making is that there was no single moment of collision, but there was constantly a collision going on somewhere. But even when the there was a single moment of collision, it is still questionable if there would be a noticeable slowdown.
No it's not questionable, there would be a slowdown regardless of the angle of collision. The top part of the building can't just crush the bottom part without slowing down, that is impossible and defies Newtons laws of motion.


The resistance offered by the floors is not that great.
OK how about we test this hypothesis with an experiment. Since the bottom portion of the building is made of the same steel and concrete as the top portion, the materials are consistent throughout the tower. To test whether or not this would result in great resistance, why don't you get a few bricks or cinderblocks together and try it out yourself. Stack a few cinderblocks, and drop one cinder block on top of it and see if the top cinderblock would slow down when it impacts the cinderblocks. What do you think would happen? Would the top cinderblock just continue accelerating towards the earth and not slow down? Well luckily you don't need to do this experiment, because it's already been done:



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


It does slow down. The towers did not fall at free fall speeds. Once you get over that hurdle you can see that the laws are applied. When the upper floors hit that lower floor there was a collision. There is no doubt to that. However, the energy of those upper floors suddenly hitting that lower floor that is already weakened, not melted, allows for the upper floors to begin to collapse. Once that happens, the mass increases with each floor and each subsequent floor under the initiation event suddenly has to attempt to account for a change that is not built into the design.

I can honestly say that if the planes had hit higher there would have been a better chance of them surviving. However, as you can see, the lower the floor hit to sooner it collapsed. That is what was intended if the force of slamming into them did not push them into the other tower as attempted in 93. If anything, maybe Al-Qaeda needs to learn about physics....



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
No it's not questionable, there would be a slowdown regardless of the angle of collision. The top part of the building can't just crush the bottom part without slowing down, that is impossible and defies Newtons laws of motion.


That is why I use the term "noticeable". We know that the collapse slowed down because there is direct evidence for that.




OK how about we test this hypothesis with an experiment. Since the bottom portion of the building is made of the same steel and concrete as the top portion, the materials are consistent throughout the tower. To test whether or not this would result in great resistance, why don't you get a few bricks or cinderblocks together and try it out yourself. Stack a few cinderblocks, and drop one cinder block on top of it and see if the top cinderblock would slow down when it impacts the cinderblocks. What do you think would happen? Would the top cinderblock just continue accelerating towards the earth and not slow down? Well luckily you don't need to do this experiment, because it's already been done:



That video has it wrong. It assumes that the supports of the top falls exactly on the supports of the bottom. That is not the case. The top falls on the floor, meaning the horizontal area. The floor was only designed to hold the floor itself, not the complete top section.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


It does slow down. The towers did not fall at free fall speeds. Once you get over that hurdle you can see that the laws are applied. When the upper floors hit that lower floor there was a collision. There is no doubt to that. However, the energy of those upper floors suddenly hitting that lower floor that is already weakened, not melted, allows for the upper floors to begin to collapse. Once that happens, the mass increases with each floor and each subsequent floor under the initiation event suddenly has to attempt to account for a change that is not built into the design.
As good as your pseudoscientific interpretation of the towers collapse may sound in your head, the laws of physics are broken by the official story. Despite your claim with nothing to back it up, it does not slow down when it should, that video graphed the velocity of the tower and when it should hit the bottom section and slow down, it continues to accelerate rather than slow down. If it indeed collided with the bottom section, the force of the top section crushing the bottom section would act equally in the opposite direction. So while the top section would crush the top floor of the bottom section, at the same time the bottom section would crush the bottom floor of the top section, and so on. The entire tower being crushed by 12 floors is impossible. The top section not experiencing a momentary deceleration when it makes contact is impossible.


I can honestly say that if the planes had hit higher there would have been a better chance of them surviving. However, as you can see, the lower the floor hit to sooner it collapsed. That is what was intended if the force of slamming into them did not push them into the other tower as attempted in 93. If anything, maybe Al-Qaeda needs to learn about physics....
I can honestly say that if the plane had hit anywhere on the tower it would not have collapsed from jet fuel weakening the structure. I think you're the one that needs to learn about physics if you believe that the official story of the towers collapse is consistent with the laws of physics.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

That is why I use the term "noticeable". We know that the collapse slowed down because there is direct evidence for that.
Yet you did not provide us with this evidence or even explain what this evidence is, you just say there's evidence and move on. The only evidence about the tower slowing down is the evidence that contradicts that concept. The top section did not slow down because by using a simple graphing program, plotting points at equal intervals shows that the buildings acceleration remained constant during the supposed moment of contact.


That video has it wrong. It assumes that the supports of the top falls exactly on the supports of the bottom. That is not the case. The top falls on the floor, meaning the horizontal area. The floor was only designed to hold the floor itself, not the complete top section.
No that video has it comptely right. It demonstrates how an object of a certain material falling onto other objects of the same material decelerates when it makes contact, and destroys itself in a manner that is concurrent with the Netwon's third law of motion. You can't trump physics with some poor analysis of the buildings design and the interaction between the floors during the collapse. If the top section hit the bottom section, it would slow down and destroy itself as it destroyed the bottom. That is physics. Those are facts backed up by experimentation and evidence.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


It is not about providing evidence, it is about showing where it is incorrect or incomplete. We have showed that but you will not accept it. I explained that the graphs cannot be compared because one is not complete. Why do you believe something that is incomplete?



new topics

top topics



 
274
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join