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.

 

Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

page: 11
34
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Cassius666
 


I imagine the planes themselves were that outside energy.


That is not what is meant by an 'outside energy'.

The outside energy would be what kept the collapses going against its own mass, the path of most resistance, and kept the collapse going even though mass and Ke was being lost.

The planes themselves had nothing to do with that. The planes did not cause the collapses, even the OS recognizes that fact.




posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



....the path of most resistance....


This is always a good one. Because, as we all know, whenever you drop something, no matter what it is, it always scanning the path ahead, calculating potential resistance and constantly changing course to find the easiest path. Or.... it moves in a straight line.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


o really? i'm a certified welder. i know exactly what molten steel looks like. i've melted it up on top of pipes, i've melted it under turbines. i've had it drop on me and burn my arms, legs, neck, everywhere.

the chart i linked to is for BLACKSMITHING, and 1371C is the uppermost limit to when steel is workable. 1371 C is 2500 F, however, that orange color at the top is very close to the melting point. the steel seen pouring out of the tower is much brighter than the top color in the chart. i've demonstrated temperatures way above what the OS can account for, and you have no viable answer.

it's kind of silly for you to agree that metals glow the same color at the same temperatures, but then say, "nope, that isn't molten steel" when what it is doesn't matter, only the color matters.

fast forward to 1:26 and tell me that isn't yellow-white enough to be molten.


edit on 17-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Sorry, in the video, thats not molten steel. Thats slag. Thats the stuff that comes to the top when they smelt iron ore with limestone to remove impurities. Grew up next to steel mill. Use to go out at night and watch them dump the slag, its kind of like a fireworks show. But thats mainly molten limestone with some unwanted impurities.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Not sure if this makes a difference but, i see people using the phrase TNT and i was under the impression that they used something called nano-thermite? At least i believe that is what they found in the rubble, military grade nano-thermite.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
could the outside energy come from jumbo jets crashing into them and igniting huge fires ?



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


oops. well..you get the idea.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


No see my post above...

We are not taking about what initiated the collapses.

Once the collapse was initiated the planes, and fires, had nothing to do with the towers collapsing themselves to the ground, in a symmetrical manner seemingly ignoring the known laws of motion.

There was no damage from planes or fire bellow the collapse point.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


gravity.

That's external.


Once enough mass is present and in motion, the maximum moment resistance is overcome, where it was only designed for the force.

This is the physics at work in french non-explosive demolitions.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ANOK
 


gravity. That's external. Once enough mass is present and in motion, the maximum moment resistance is overcome, where it was only designed for the force. This is the physics at work in french non-explosive demolitions.


Oh dear, another excuse that ignores the laws of motion. Gravity is a given in the laws of motion, it does not change the equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws. Gravity alone can not force objects to fall through paths of most resistance.

French style demolition work by dropping 50% of the building on 50% of the pre-weakend building, and it doesn't work on steel framed buildings. Try dropping 20% on 80% and see if it still works.

Have any of you been to high school, or has the education system really got this bad? Seriously!



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Has he accounted for all the electricity still flowing in the building, all the lithium ion batteries in the several thousand laptops and cell phones? All the human fat and flesh burned? All the flamable materials in there?

-rrr



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Oh I am quite educated thanks.


See, you're right, gravity alone doesn't/ But add in 2 planes, and the resources to generate thermite (silicon, iron, magnesium, aluminum, zinc, all naturally occurring in the structure) and your most resistance becomes least resistance.


While I admit I don't understand most of that demolition 50% on 50%, the above reaction significantly makes it possible for the same physics to go about working down a building, as it no longer is a fully stable steel structure.

There is no reason to insult my intelligence on a forum where the mods already have said such stuff is immature and absolutely uncalled for.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Gravity alone can not force objects to fall through paths of most resistance.


There are no paths for gravity, its a straight line. And gravity will force objects through resistance. Least, most, some, alot, are just adjectives.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


no, gravity flows through resistance and densities. Two columns and a cross beam above will drive gravity at an angle into the columns. Because the resistance force going against gravity flows through it there.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   


Quite a few people reported hearing bombs going off...again not one to jump to conclusions as the cause could be a number of things, like structural failure.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by hooper
 


no, gravity flows through resistance and densities. Two columns and a cross beam above will drive gravity at an angle into the columns. Because the resistance force going against gravity flows through it there.


Sorry, I have to disagree. Gravity works in a straight line. You're talking about force that is a result of gravity.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


perhaps I am wrong.


Gravity works on individual molecules. It's always the same vector, always going the same center.

However, for the purposes of our macro world, gravity is a flow of force:






posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


OK, however, for the purposes of the collapse of the towers it is essential to understand the argument being presented that anytime a falling object meets resistance it changes course seeking "the path of least resistance", you know, like a river or creek meandering through a rock formation it will eventually erode a path through the rock that offers the least resistance to the erosive effects of the moving water.

This view is being proffered in order to promote the idea that the buildings should not have collapse straight down "symmetrically" and "in their own footprint". That having met resistance they should have either arrested or jumped away from the building or some such other nonsense.

Like the videos. Understand your point. I will note that none of those things are possible unless gravity's behavior is constant.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


I see no reason why the structure would not collapse straight down. It's a symmetrical tower. it should go straight down. If it was the chinese cctv tower, perhaps not.

Fact is yea, the giant plane hole would have made it bend to a direction slightly. And it did. But after which, the symmetrical nature of the tower brought it down straight down.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by hooper
 


I see no reason why the structure would not collapse straight down. It's a symmetrical tower. it should go straight down. If it was the chinese cctv tower, perhaps not.

Fact is yea, the giant plane hole would have made it bend to a direction slightly. And it did. But after which, the symmetrical nature of the tower brought it down straight down.


Shhhhh! You're making too much sense. You see there's a physical law that you were not aware of, if the damage is symmetrical then the collapse must be symmetrical, if the damage is asymmetric then the collapse must be asymmetric. And no, I don't who gets to decide what is and what is not symmetrical.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join