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.

 

Simple experiment involving wrecking ball and aviation fuel to prove if 9/11 is true or false

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
At some point in time a building will be needed taken down. While flying an airplane into it is dangerous and impractical, a simpler solution exists.

Use a wrecking ball to smash ~3/4's of the way up the tower, fill the hole with aviation fuel equal to the amount in an inflight 757 airplane, light it on fire, then wait about an hour to see if it collapses into its own footprint. If the top falls over or the building falls on its side, the experiment fails.

You can also get an equal Force with the wrecking ball:

F = mass X acceleration
= mass (airplane) X acceleration (not just velocity)
= Force of impact

The wrecking ball should equal this force (not sure about exact figures of mass or how much acceleration the plane had, but a larger wrecking ball could be used if the acceleration can not be matched.)




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
At some point in time a building will be needed taken down. While flying an airplane into it is dangerous and impractical, a simpler solution exists.

Use a wrecking ball to smash ~3/4's of the way up the tower, fill the hole with aviation fuel equal to the amount in an inflight 757 airplane, light it on fire, then wait about an hour to see if it collapses into its own footprint. If the top falls over or the building falls on its side, the experiment fails.

You can also get an equal Force with the wrecking ball:

F = mass X acceleration
= mass (airplane) X acceleration (not just velocity)
= Force of impact

The wrecking ball should equal this force (not sure about exact figures of mass or how much acceleration the plane had, but a larger wrecking ball could be used if the acceleration can not be matched.)




I guess a simpler way would be to just light a building on fire with jet fuel and see if it ever fails on its own.. Of course the fire can consume anything in its path, but not the steel itself, so that would tell the tale rather well.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by rstregooski
 


That is one possibility, to just light the office equipment on fire since according to the official story that is what brought the building down, not just the airplane. However, to more accurately recreate the event a wrecking ball is much more practical to use and mimics the effects of an airplane.

What's funny is the people who support the government story will demand the wrecking ball even though the official story basically says office equipment fire alone caused the collapse.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Be careful with this logic. The government defenders will be here in no time calling you stupid for thinking of that idea. They will insult you so that you will not try to discuss topic again.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I think it's a good idea, maybe one that can be used, without any press notice (ie don't tell anyone before hand), and see what happens. I think most of us on here have an idea of the outcome - no collapse, but when it's obvious afterwards, and word gets out, what's that going to do to people? Have you thought of the consequences of the average USan becoming aware that a major part of the official story of 9/11 is a complete lie, and that there clearly was govt. involvement? it could be disastrous - what else will people start thinking isn't as the govt say? How far will it go? will there end up being civil unrest, rioting in the streets? militia? is it just playing into the hands of those in power, wanting to create kind of police state.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
That would be way over simplified and would not accurately recreate anything useful. It would have to be a similar building in construction materials including workmanship quality, you would have to know about any shortcuts that the original builders took in the construction process, the load would have to be distributed across the same number of pilings then have them cut, you would have to simulate any ruptured gas line fires, you would have to account for things such as boilers exploding, etc…

There are just too many variables in that accident to ever accurately recreate it, which is why I feel the big deal made over the simplified official story is somewhat silly. There is no way that anyone is going to write any official story that is going to take every single variable into account and give a 100% accurate recreation of the event. Many of the details will never be known. For example, do you think that original contractor would publicly admit that they did something like left out every other rivet to cut costs, thinned their concrete mixture too much, did cheap welds, or used materials that were not up to codes, etc?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I would be willing to bet that if the building were to be built to inferior specifications AND the simulated damage were even greater than that of the towers, with even more jet fuel added to the mix- the result would not even come close to the destruction seen on 9/11. Just my opinion.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 


A wrecking ball is never going to produce the amount of potential energy released by a widebody aircraft moving at high speed.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


I agree, I am not suggesting the methodology of causing the damage. I am just stating that how ever the damage is applied, I doubt we would see the same result.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by defcon5
 


I agree, I am not suggesting the methodology of causing the damage. I am just stating that how ever the damage is applied, I doubt we would see the same result.


From what I have seen, there has never been a building that collapsed in the history of sky scraper fires. One or two that I saw lost a fraction of the building (chunk falls to the side) but no total free fall straight down collapse bs.. And some or most of these were buildings built long before the WTC. The evidence is just so overwhelming that it truly shows how stupid the masses are, and how powerful psychological governments can be over its people.

Deebo
edit on 24-6-2011 by Deebo because: fix



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Simplification is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when it comes to scientific experiments. Trying to find the exact building is not necessary, even if two new WTC's were built, you'd argue that it's not the same since they are new not old. And if you did it to the sears tower in Chicago, you'd argue that it was done with Chicago trained technicians not New York trained technicians. At a certain point the experiment is just for educational purposes. Isn't that what science is all about?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by micmerci
 


A wrecking ball is never going to produce the amount of potential energy released by a widebody aircraft moving at high speed.


Force depends on acceleration more so than speed, but this can be equaled out by having a wrecking ball of greater mass than the plane. They don't call it a wrecking ball for nothing. They are designed to take down a building, and here you are arguing that the wrecking ball can't provide enough potential energy to imitate a plane impact, when THE PLANE DID NOT IMMEDIATELY TAKE THE BUILDING DOWN.
edit on 24-6-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Why dont we just build a jenga tower, and shoot rubber bands at it. If it doesnt fall.... fail./.


too simple? ok rubber bands on fire.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 





At some point in time a building will be needed taken down. While flying an airplane into it is dangerous and impractical, a simpler solution exists. Use a wrecking ball to smash ~3/4's of the way up the tower, fill the hole with aviation fuel equal to the amount in an inflight 757 airplane, light it on fire, then wait about an hour to see if it collapses into its own footprint. If the top falls over or the building falls on its side, the experiment fails.


I'm sorry, but this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

....and yet I'm sure someone will come along and ask me why.......



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deebo
From what I have seen, there has never been a building that collapsed in the history of sky scraper fires. One or two that I saw lost a fraction of the building (chunk falls to the side) but no total free fall straight down collapse bs.. And some or most of these were buildings built long before the WTC. The evidence is just so overwhelming that it truly shows how stupid the masses are, and how powerful psychological governments can be over its people.

First off there has never been an incident exactly like this to compare it too before.

Very simple experiment to show this…
Build a house of cards, say 2’X2’X 4’ then take a Frisbee and throw it through it into it between ½ and ¾ the way from the top. Make sure you through the Frisbee on a flat trajectory, and it’s moving fairly fast. I’ll bet you that 99% of the time the house of cards drops directly into its own footprint.

The reason is that you are quickly snatching out many of the support columns from the halfway point, sort of like a magician pulling a tablecloth out from under a set table. That allows the weight of the upper ½ to 1/3 of the structure to drop nearly straight down onto the lower supporting structure and cause it to buckle and collapse on itself. The same way that the settings on the magicians table, if the cloth is pulled correctly, drop straight down unto the table and don’t tip over. The major force acting on the structure is going to be its own weight heading toward the ground, as normally the Frisbee/plane itself does not have enough energy to push the structure to the side and cause it to collapse sideways.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Very simple experiment to show this…
Build a house of cards, say 2’X2’X 4’ then take a Frisbee and throw it through it into it between ½ and ¾ the way from the top. Make sure you through the Frisbee on a flat trajectory, and it’s moving fairly fast. I’ll bet you that 99% of the time the house of cards drops directly into its own footprint.


Are you serious?

Of course it will collapse into its footprint, there is nothing stopping it.

How can you compare thousands of tons of steel bolted and welded together with playing cards stacked up with nothing holding them together?

Here is the difference, one has resistance, the other doesn't, can you guess which is which and what difference it would make?


Your other analogy is even more ridiculous, and you wonder why we say OSers don't understand the physics involved?



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

Because bolts and welding offer little to no resistance by comparison to the vast amount of weight that is dropping straight down on top of it as the upper stories slam down on top of them.

If it make you feel better put a few small dabs of white glue on the edges of the cards, but you’ll still end up with the same result. A house of cards will collapse in the exact same manner as a truss constructed building.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by ANOK
 

Because bolts and welding offer little to no resistance by comparison to the vast amount of weight that is dropping straight down on top of it as the upper stories slam down on top of them.

If it make you feel better put a few small dabs of white glue on the edges of the cards, but you’ll still end up with the same result. A house of cards will collapse in the exact same manner as a truss constructed building.


I just tried a house of cards collapse, and indeed you were correct, but, there were 2 significant factors missing...

1). The cards were not reduced to dust as they fell.

2). 80% of the cards were not ejected outside of the house of cards foot print.

Can you explain why pls?.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
What I don't understand is why someone doesn't just build an exact replica of a WTC tower, fill it with all the stuff that was there on 9/11 - there must be a list of that stuff, surely, unless the government is witholding it - then fly a plane into it.

That would settle it once and for all.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by ANOK
 

Because bolts and welding offer little to no resistance by comparison to the vast amount of weight that is dropping straight down on top of it as the upper stories slam down on top of them.

If it make you feel better put a few small dabs of white glue on the edges of the cards, but you’ll still end up with the same result. A house of cards will collapse in the exact same manner as a truss constructed building.


The building was designed to hold its weight plus a safety factor that would allow the building to hold its own weight many times over. So sorry but there was no reason at all the building would completely collapse from its own weight. The laws of motion tell us that 15 floors can not crush 95 floors.

A house of cards is not even close to being a good analogy for a building. Gluing them together still doesn't make it act like the towers would.

Try this, take two slabs of concrete and smash them together, take the rubble and drop it all on another slab of concrete. Then come back and tell us how the rubble did not crush the concrete slab. Simple physics.

Forget about your analogies, and please try to explain using the laws of motion how you think it could happen. A hint, the 3rd law is the one that is relevant. Until you do your anomalies will always fail to explain your point.


edit on 6/26/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)







 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join